Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Holy_Kaiser

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #1 
Before we start off, let this be clear: This is not a rhetorical question.
Anyways, I don't spend much time on forum websites; The last forum I joined was a cat Forum. So I might not get some things here and there. 

Context: I was debating with my friend who's a Libertarian Pro-Democracy guy. For the most part, I was doing good with the debate. However, he argued that Democracies are more stable than Monarchies when observing countries with Democracies, and countries with Absolute Monarchies. You know, endless wars, heavily oppressed people, Religion making things complicated, the good stuff. I hate to say this but...He's right. 

However, perhaps I had a fact that I missed, or a powerful Counter-Argument, etc.
Point is, do we have something to debunk his statement? Or something like that?
Thank you.




__________________
Quote:
The absolute ruler may be a Nero, but he is sometimes a Titus or Marc Aurelius; The people is often Nero, but never Marc Aurelius.

-Antoine Rivarol
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 307
Reply with quote  #2 
Your friend is making the mistake of confusing correlation with causation.

When people compare democracy to monarchy, they often compare modern democracy to medieval or early modern monarchies, because today there are more democratic republics than ever before and in the past there were many more monarchies where the monarch possessed significant political power. And when comparing modern monarchies to modern republics, they tend to compare first world democracies to states like Saudi Arabia or Swaziland. Obviously this is a broken comparison, because a modern first world country would be expected to be more stable than a medieval feudal state or a modern third world country regardless of its form of government, owing to their prosperity and level of development.

I would argue that actually, the reason democracies are usually more stable than non-democratic countries is more likely to be because democracy is inherently unstable, and therefore only works as a system in a country that already has a substantial degree of social and political stability. We can see looking at the developing world that trying to establish a stable and functional democratic state in an unstable country with no prior experience of democracy is difficult, if not impossible. Monarchies are much more stable under such circumstances.

Personally I think that the best models of government tend to be mixed government, with a combination of democratic bodies and hereditary and appointed positions. Democracy has the merit of making government responsible to the general population, but this should be counterbalanced by a strong executive free from the need to court popularity to retain power.

__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
Holy_Kaiser

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #3 
Ah, I see now. 
Should've thought about it. Seems pretty obvious now that You said it.
Thank you.

__________________
Quote:
The absolute ruler may be a Nero, but he is sometimes a Titus or Marc Aurelius; The people is often Nero, but never Marc Aurelius.

-Antoine Rivarol
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.