Monarchy vs Democracy

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

So I've just been watching a few videos about monarchism and democracy and all that stuff, and it's really activated my almonds. So, I've created this thread where we can talk about monarchy and democracy, and maybe other schools of legislative thought like oligarchy and meritocracy and such, and talk about their strengths and flaws and which ones you would personally go with. In what ways are they efficient or inefficient? Stable or unstable? Fair or tyrannical?

Ya see, I'm a staunch democrat (the system of government, not the US party), and I have an unfortunate tendency to be a bit militant, and a bit uncharitable to more autocratic users, for which I apologize. So, I created this thread to hear some perspectives I don't share and get an idea as to what informs them.

As I said before, I am personally in favour of democracy. In particular, a system in which the public votes on every legislation, but you still have an elected legislature to vet and organise the process, and a judiciary to make sure any given bill doesn't infringe the rights of the minority. I support this, because of the old axiom, "no taxation without representation." However I extrapolate it to the sentiment that, if you're gonna be telling me what to do, I should have some small say, or they could push me around all they wanted. I'm also somewhat of a populist at heart (not the right-wing or left-wing kind) so there's that too.

Also, fuck mandatory voting, it's like pointing a gun to someone's head and saying "WHO DO YOU WANT? PICK ONE!" I mean, some people just don't care and you shouldn't force them to.

Another footnote: Just a little extra objective for the monarchists, a little Xbox achievement. Try to argue in favour of monarchy without using religion. It doesn't have an especially huge persuading power on atheists, or the majority of theists in the first world for that matter.

[Purple Empire]

Some countries are a monarchy and a democracy. Think of the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden. In these countries, the monarch only has (very) limited to non-existent power and have a democratic chosen parliament.

[The Transhuman Union]

I assume by monarchy you mean autocratic absolute monarchies? If so, I would tell you one thing:
Give me liberty or give me death.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Well, democracy is the only political system that truly serves the interests of the people rather than the elite. However, monarchy and democracy can coexist in constitutional monarchies (I live in a constitutional monarchy, the UK).

[Diogott]

Others have made this point- they're not incompatible. You can't really compare the two.

The Kingdom of Norway is the most democratic country in the world according to 2017's Democracy Index. It's not an isolated case either- of the 10 most democratic countries in the world, 6 of them are monarchies- doubly impressive when you consider that, compared to republics, monarchies are very much in the minority.

I'm not a large fan of the argument that constitutional monarchies are basically republics either. The point is that they aren't republics.

Following on from that point too, authoritarian republics where the leadership is de facto hereditary (like North Korea) can't be considered monarchies. There are no succession laws governing how the positions change hands.

and there aren't any crowns either but i suppose there's no crown of new zealand

Absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia can fuck off too.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Others have made this point- they're not incompatible. You can't really compare the two.

The Kingdom of Norway is the most democratic country in the world according to 2017's Democracy Index. It's not an isolated case either- of the 10 most democratic countries in the world, 6 of them are monarchies- doubly impressive when you consider that, compared to republics, monarchies are very much in the minority.

I'm not a large fan of the argument that constitutional monarchies are basically republics either. The point is that they aren't republics.

Following on from that point too, authoritarian republics where the leadership is de facto hereditary (like North Korea) can't be considered monarchies. There are no succession laws governing how the positions change hands.

and there aren't any crowns either but i suppose there's no crown of new zealand

Absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia can fuck off too.

Authoritarian republics where power is generally hereditary, such as Syria and North Korea, are de facto monarchies IMO.

[Diogott]

Others have made this point- they're not incompatible. You can't really compare the two.

The Kingdom of Norway is the most democratic country in the world according to 2017's Democracy Index. It's not an isolated case either- of the 10 most democratic countries in the world, 6 of them are monarchies- doubly impressive when you consider that, compared to republics, monarchies are very much in the minority.

I'm not a large fan of the argument that constitutional monarchies are basically republics either. The point is that they aren't republics.

Following on from that point too, authoritarian republics where the leadership is de facto hereditary (like North Korea) can't be considered monarchies. There are no succession laws governing how the positions change hands.

and there aren't any crowns either but i suppose there's no crown of new zealand

Absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia can fuck off too.

Authoritarian republics where power is generally hereditary, such as Syria and North Korea, are de facto monarchies IMO.

I disagree. You can't really define a monarchy by its succession- I mean, there have been (and continue to exist) monarchies that aren't hereditary. The Vatican City and Malaysia spring to mind as modern, if less conventional examples.

Hell, one of Andorra's co-princes is the French President. You can't really get less hereditary than that.

Monarchies are defined by their thrones and who sits on them. What's most important is whether they are recognised as monarchs or not, both within and externally. If such countries as Syria and North Korea don't even declare themselves monarchies, how are we, as outsiders, to say otherwise?

Oh, and there's another important legal distinction to be made. Monarchs exercise the role of sovereignty. In the UK, we have Her Majesty's Government. Court cases are R v. whoever, the R standing for Rex (or in this case, Regina)- it's technically all the Queen's.

In republics of all flavours, heads of state don't get that distinction. The sovereignty isn't theirs to have.

[Risottia]

Some countries are a monarchy and a democracy. Think of the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden. In these countries, the monarch only has (very) limited to non-existent power and have a democratic chosen parliament.

Poor Denmark, Norway, Canada and New Zealand get no love I see. Shame! Shame!

Anyway, the right contrapositions are:
democracy <-> authoritarian regime
republic <-> monarchy

There are plenty of authoritarian republics and plenty of democratic monarchies.

[Post War America]

Some countries are a monarchy and a democracy. Think of the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden. In these countries, the monarch only has (very) limited to non-existent power and have a democratic chosen parliament.

Poor Denmark, Norway, Canada and New Zealand get no love I see. Shame! Shame!

When your head of state is a foreign monarch you know you've goofed.

[Sagallena]

I live in an absolute monarchy at the moment.

Funnily enough, it's succeeded more than democracy has in the entire Middle East.

I'm in favour of one person in charge, be they a monarch or a dictator, more than democracy personally.

[Folknoren]

Ok, in All seriousness, the word you're looking for is "Republic". Democracy isn't a form of government, it's a method of representation within a government (like Oligarchy.)

[Risottia]

Poor Denmark, Norway, Canada and New Zealand get no love I see. Shame! Shame!

When your head of state is a foreign monarch you know you've goofed.

No monarchy has a foreign monarch as head of state. Maybe you're thinking of colonies.

Case in point, the Queen of New Zealand is a New Zealander too, and the Queen of Canada is a Canadian, too. That's how personal unions work.

[Folknoren]

When your head of state is a foreign monarch you know you've goofed.

No monarchy has a foreign monarch as head of state. Maybe you're thinking of colonies.

Case in point, the Queen of New Zealand is a New Zealander too, and the Queen of Canada is a Canadian, too. That's how personal unions work.

Unless you become a Vassal State. Like some of Ottoman Empire's vassal states lol.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

A mix of the two is ok, a constitutional monarchy.

But otherwise, democracy forever.

[Risottia]

No monarchy has a foreign monarch as head of state. Maybe you're thinking of colonies.

Case in point, the Queen of New Zealand is a New Zealander too, and the Queen of Canada is a Canadian, too. That's how personal unions work.

Unless you become a Vassal State. Like some of Ottoman Empire's vassal states lol.

Same stuff, only instead of being called colonies they're called vassals. Just like the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, bishoprics and whatnot in the HRE.

[Telconi]

Whichever benefits me more.

[Hammer Britannia]

Monarchies are trash systems of ruling. Now, there are good monarchs, but most of the time it's "Oooh I happened to be born to some rich and powerful people so now I rule with unlimited power". And don't even get me started on the incest (Habsburgs), good lord the number of marriages that happened, your father is your uncle in the world of the monarchy and the inheritance wars, good god the inheritance wars

tl;dr: It's inheritance but with more fighting and incest, and if modern celebrities have taught me anything...

[Post War America]

Monarchies are trash systems of ruling. Now, there are good monarchs, but most of the time it's "Oooh I happened to be born to some rich and powerful people so now I rule with unlimited power". And don't even get me started on the incest (Habsburgs), good lord the number of marriages that happened, your father is your uncle in the world of the monarchy and the inheritance wars, good god the inheritance wars

tl;dr: It's inheritance but with more fighting and incest, and if modern celebrities have taught me anything...

incest = wincest.

[Verlzonia]

Why can't I pick a less family-orientated autocratic ideology like lovely fascism? Both democracy and monarchy are failures

[Trumptonium1]

Depends on many factors to be honest, including culture and national ethos.

Brazil was much better off as an Empire - and perhaps as an authoritarian regime in the 30s - than it is today as a fully free democracy.

[The Great-German Empire]

Well, I'd say there are quite some arguments for a monarchy - a constitutional one, of course.

First off, let's define the features of a monarchy. The Head of State, ceremonial or executive, is a monarch - an individual who receives their role on account of their blood ties with the previous monarch. Said monarch has at the very least ceremonial obligations to the government apparatus, and embodies the country itself.

A modern, constitutional monarch excercises little power, with most executive state functions peformed by their indirectly-elected Head of Government and Cabinet. They are expected to be calm and impartial, in order for the symbol of the entire country to not carry a political air - which seems to be a problem with republics, with half the US kicking and screaming if their party's candidate couldn't claim the title of President. Hell, even the ceremonial and indirectly-elected President of Germany, who not everybody (at least abroad) even notices exists, has a party affiliation.

Now, I must say that many modern monarchs such as the Kings of the scandinavian countries have faded from public life too much; Few people even notice Sweden has a king. Gustav XVI is, sadly, not a powerful symbol. Elizabeth II of the UK, however, is; She is beloved, respected and might be what's holding that barely-sane Union together. I'd wager a lot of it comes from her age, though. Then again, the UK doesn't even have a codified constitution, and Elizabeth is henceforth not powerless at all, merely choosing to let democracy run its course; maybe this aura of restraint also makes her more well-known.

In terms of power, I'd actuall be willing to give monarchs more than what they have today. With modern education, ethics and electorate self-awaweness, I wouldn't be afraid to give a monarch the same powers as those wielded by the President of France; Doubly so if the country is a federation. A monarch who would effectively be there for the people, educated and raised specifically to be a good leader would be able to excercise decisive action, lead in wartime and promote good causes in peacetime; and all the while, legislation and day-to-day governance remains democratic. And if they still don't feel ready to govern, they could just temporarily delegate things to the democratic Head of Government. That's my ideal, tbf.

[The Great-German Empire]

I live in an absolute monarchy at the moment.

Funnily enough, it's succeeded more than democracy has in the entire Middle East.

I'm in favour of one person in charge, be they a monarch or a dictator, more than democracy personally.

If I may ask, which country is that?

[Old Tyrannia]

Some countries are a monarchy and a democracy. Think of the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden. In these countries, the monarch only has (very) limited to non-existent power and have a democratic chosen parliament.

Poor Denmark, Norway, Canada and New Zealand get no love I see. Shame! Shame!

Anyway, the right contrapositions are:
democracy <-> authoritarian regime
republic <-> monarchy

There are plenty of authoritarian republics and plenty of democratic monarchies.

It's possible for a democracy to be authoritarian. I think you're conflating "authoritarianism," which is a measure of the degree to which a government restricts its citizens' personal freedoms, with "autocracy." There have been examples of relatively liberal autocrats and cases of democracies implementing authoritarian measures through history. Remember poor Socrates.

I would characterise a dictator as a ruler who exercises unrestricted power acquired and retained through extralegal means. A dictator is not beholden to any constitution, codified or uncodified, and their power is generally personal rather than institutional. A monarch, according to my understanding, is an individual who wields supreme authority (sovereignty) in a state according to customary or constitutional law; a legitimate monarch acquires power legally under the laws of the society in question, who derives their authority primarily from their position as monarch, and whose legal authority is subject to whatever restrictions are proscribed by the customary law or constitution of their society. A monarch can be a dictator if they exercise extralegal personal power beyond the restrictions customarily placed upon their role; for example, Carol II of Romania or Mohammed Reza Shah of Iran.

Why can't I pick a less family-orientated autocratic ideology like lovely fascism? Both democracy and monarchy are failures

The longest lasting fascist regime in history lasted all of 21 years and left the host country divided and occupied by foreign military forces. And you want to talk about failure?

[Claorica]

Well, democracy is the only political system that truly serves the interests of the people rather than the elite. However, monarchy and democracy can coexist in constitutional monarchies (I live in a constitutional monarchy, the UK).

Democracy only serves the 51% and ignores the 49%

a Monarch is raised from their very birth to be the embodiment of their people, and ought to be trained to do what is absolutely best for their persons. A monarch can even be someone who doesn't even want the position - which is far better than the politician who by the very nature of democracy has to be an ambitious person who is seeking power.

[Hammer Britannia]

Monarchies are trash systems of ruling. Now, there are good monarchs, but most of the time it's "Oooh I happened to be born to some rich and powerful people so now I rule with unlimited power". And don't even get me started on the incest (Habsburgs), good lord the number of marriages that happened, your father is your uncle in the world of the monarchy and the inheritance wars, good god the inheritance wars

tl;dr: It's inheritance but with more fighting and incest, and if modern celebrities have taught me anything...

incest = wincest.

Delet this