Did the monarchy system have any advantages over democracy?
By Awinds
@Awinds (2468)
United States
July 14, 2011 3:28pm CST
The days of the absolute monarchs (kings and queens) are pretty much over. These days democracy is the popular form of government. Most of us have already have it inside our heads that kings are bad and elected leaders are better. Power in the hands of many is better than power in the hands of one. The disadvantages of the monarchy system are common sense.
But my question to you is, did the old monarchy system have of any advantages over the the democracy system of government? Were there some areas where the monarchy performed better than modern democracy? If so, what are those advantages or areas?
1 person likes this
5 responses
@SpikeTheLobster (6403)
•
14 Jul 11
I don't think a pure monarchy has any real advantages, unless you happen to be the monarch. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, which is a neat mix of both systems. The Queen doesn't have much real power (though she can dissolve Parliament, I believe, and carries considerable consultative power with whoever's PM) but remains as a figurehead.
Oh, I just thought of one: continuity. With short-term government, the currently-ruling party is always switching policies, starting wars to distract people from bad things at home, converting public companies to private ownership (or vice-versa) and that sort of thing. With a monarch in power all their life, that sort of thing is less likely to happen: they have a longer-term view.
The only other advantage I can think of in a monarchy is the simplicity of certain things like maintaining a standing army and taxing: since everything belongs to the monarch, everything's paid for by him/her as well. Probably less bureaucracy to deal with.
Oh, and one more: you don't have to put up with politicians!!! 
Not much advantage, really.
Not much advantage, really. 
@SpikeTheLobster (6403)
•
15 Jul 11
As Churchill once said (paraphrased): "Democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the others."
@jwill3 (16)
• United States
15 Jul 11
Ha funny commentary Spike. I agree the speed of action, MAY, be the only positive to a monarchy. But I don't believe there is a perfect system out there. I think too much power in any governmental system is bad, but where to find the balance.
@KingofDex (7)
• Philippines
15 Jul 11
Yes. Governments lead by monarchs are much stable compared to democrats, specially in present era that people were easily distracted by other elements of society such as media, church and other powerful groups, leading to instability of government institutions
@Awinds (2468)
• United States
16 Jul 11
Stability yes - but is the price worth it? Take for example Louis XVI of France. Yes, his people knew what to expect. Unbearable taxes to fund the ruling class's parties. Louis XVI insisted on maintaining conditions so bad that he drove the lower class into starting a violent rebellion. Louis XVI's rule was a burdensome stability and in the end it led to great instability, or anarchy. At least with a democratic government there is chance to peacefully elect a new leader who is more principled.
@jeanneyvonne (5501)
• Philippines
16 Jul 11
I believe That the failures of that particular monarch is the reason why people in France did the Revolution (and int urn, why the United States continued to be democratic). Though the revolution was a success in its initial stages, the country went a very dark and long period of revolutions until Napoleon came into power.
You also have to concede that absolute monarchy in those periods was the only thing and the only type of governemnt that people and society know. The people and the monarch both have the same thinking that the monarch is a God's representative on earth as a ruler. Heck, even the Vatican have their own dealing with monarchs of different countries. They have known nothing else. If Louis XVI had been the king you imagined, the revolution would have not happened and Europe would still be the powerhouse of monarchies . However, I think that even in time, monarchies will remain and evolved into constitutional monarchies. Like democracy, monarchy is dependent on the favor of the people, especially with the globalization even as far back as the Industrial Revolution.
@ebuscat (5935)
• Philippines
15 Jul 11
For me they are not good they don't have it to know what it is all of them is ruined in the time of Armageddon.
@veganbliss (3895)
• Adelaide, Australia
14 Jul 11
Yes, there were some worth mentioning, in the case of absolute monarchs that you mention. The most noticeable difference is raw decision-making speed. If there was a national emergency, like a war, for example, there would be no need to waste time consulting, appeasing, overly drawn out negotiations, etc, etc. Any decision made is much, much faster & often final.
Another aspect is certainty & stability. Whether good or bad, one knew what to expect from their monarch & that it would continue for quite some time or until somebody, usually in power or in war, killed the monarch.
Fewer public servants & minimized red tape bureaucracy is yet another aspect that comes to mind. Taxes, for example, were much easier to pay - just give the armed patrols whatever they asked for whenever they asked for it & they would usually leave you alone for awhile!
Having said that, absolute monarchies rely heavily on an individual. Sometimes a lot of good has been done very quickly & just as quickly, at other times a lot of damage has been done. In democracies today, an individual or even a whole group of them have their powers very much limited. They cannot even make good, positive change if they or even most of the people voting for them wanted to.
I'm not too sure what you mean by saying common sense is a disadvantage of an absolute monarchy.
@Awinds (2468)
• United States
16 Jul 11
The speed of decision making is the major advantage. However the worth of that advantage is highly inconsistent. It gives the monarch power to save or destroy a country faster than a democracy.
Let me clarify on the last part. I meant it should be obvious what the disadvantages of an absolute monarchy are (e.g. tyranny, a bad leader stays in power for years and years, the people can have little voice if the monarch does not listen, there is always the possibility of to high of taxes). Let us say I got lazy there and decided to leave it up to the responders to think of the disadvantages on their own.
@veganbliss (3895)
• Adelaide, Australia
16 Jul 11
Oh - you mean that it's common sense what the disadvantages of an absolute monarchy are? Yes - that's the way I took it, so I decided to focus mostly on the positives.
So, out of interest, which country do you think has the best political system in the world today?
So, out of interest, which country do you think has the best political system in the world today?
@Yogesh2708 (454)
• India
16 Jul 11
Not all monarchs are merciless, its depend on the king's characters, his honesty weather the peoples in region he has conquered will be fine and not facing any day to day life problems.
.
Do you know about SHIVAJI MAHARAJ? He was monarch of india at times of seventeenth century when india was including todays pakistan, afganistan, shrilanka,banladesh? His life was only of 38 years but still he is remembered for honestly, his hardworking for reestablishment of HINDU religion. During his times, all peoples were happy and were proud to have such a intelligent, honest, king caring their deeds. You can see on wikipedia.
.
So monarchy system is a good system over democracy if the king is good.
.
I don't like the laws in democracy system. Because for any offence there is infliction of jail or for big one there is lifetime jail and nothing else. This is wrong, due to this offenders doesn't scare of rules and regulations unlike democracy system.
