Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics

  Author   Comment  

Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #1 
1. If you want something done, do it yourself.
There are several known jokes about how inefficient committees are. It doesn't matter whether you opt to call them committees, parliaments, councils or whatever. Such bodies cannot effectively run a state. That's why one person should be left alone to make decisions. At least that one person, with their strengths and weaknesses, will be able to produce some positive results, at least every now and then, as opposed to committees, who, as the joke says, bicker for ages only to end up deciding that nothing can be done.

2. More speed and less bureaucracy.
In democracy, processes are slow and, whenever something goes wrong, magically, it's nobody's fault! Every entity involved in governance will always claim that it's another entity's fault. In monarchy, where, ultimately, all powers are gathered in the hands of one person, that person cannot avoid responsibility. And of course, in monarchy, whenever something needs to be done fast, the monarch can take charge and do it fast, with no unnecessary bureaucracy and protocols.

3. Less corruption and demagogy.
A monarch can't be bribed. A monarch fears no political cost. A monarch cannot be blackmailed by possessors of wealth, who, in democracy, often use fake scandals to blackmail politicians whose decisions could be beneficial otherwise. Even the most unskilled monarch is not as detrimental to their country as they would be in a democracy. Even the most skilled democratically elected leader ends up compromising.

4. More stability.
In democracy, power changes hands constantly. It is highly unlikely that people will ever decide to elect the same person more than once or twice (even if that person is really skilled) thus giving that person the time needed to produce some really lasting, positive results.

5. It is more likely than a skilled leader will show up.
Think of it. Who is more likely to turn out to be a skilled leader? Someone elected by a huge mass of people who have zero knowledge of how a state's affairs work (democracy)? Someone who did another job until, in their 50s, they suddenly decided to become politicians (democracy)? Or someone who has been trained since birth to rule, who has set their mind and heart to that goal since the day they were born (hereditary monarchy)?

6. It was the norm for millenia.
With very few exceptions, democracy existed nowhere until about 200 years ago. All countries had been monarchies since the dawn of human history. Do you think all those countless generations of people would have accepted that system if it wasn't indeed effective?

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #2 
Less government in general than a democracy. In a democracy everyone must be involved via, at the very least, voting. In monarchy only one ruler/ruling family.
"This guy gets it." Fan mail I've received.
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.