Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

6 Reasons Monarchy Is Better than Democracy. (1 Viewer)

Hector

Senior Member
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 so easily. A monarch fears no political cost. A monarch cannot easily 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 millennia.
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?
 

Paularo

Senior Member
Democracy has become dead weight in some parts of the world that Monarchy is definitely now a better option.
 

CyberWar

Senior Member
The one benefit of democracy over monarchy is the possibility to get rid of an inept or tyrannical ruler without a bloody revolution. The reason democracies have become so common is, I think, among other things because the ruling elites have realized that they are by far the least conducive forms of government for warfare and popular revolution. A democratic government means that no single man has the authority to start a war or adopt oppressive laws that may incite a revolution, so while it may promote mediocrity and inefficiency in governance, in the very least it helps prevent large-scale wars that would mean the end of civilization with the modern military technologies.

Personally I think a better form of governance for the present day would be a limited democracy. Leave the masses their suffrage, but make them work for it. People who'd have to earn their political rights through hard national service and/or study for higher education would be that much more incentivized to exercise them and take the extra effort to be properly informed about the political ongoings of their nation. The main problem with modern democracy isn't that it is not functional as a system, rather it's that this system has been degraded to a popularity contest between mediocrities with good PR specialists with an ignorant, gullible and largely apathetic masses as the jury, from whom no serious political activity or interest beyond voting is neither expected nor desired. I think much of modern democracy's problems would go away if the electorate was cut down to those actually capable and interested in making an informed decision based in actual personal understanding of the issues at hand.
 

andrewclunn

Friends of WF
Constitutional republic with limited suffrage based on land ownership > Feudal monarchy
Democracy with universal suffrage < Constitutional monarchy
 
I think this is an interesting essay solely because it's a perspective you don't hear a lot. However, I think it could use more depth, more meat. It stays mostly on the surface. You could provide answers to common critiques of monarchy -- consider why people set up democracies in the first place, and respond to that. I also think the sixth point is rather irrelevant. The newness or oldness of an idea doesn't indicate its goodness or badness, I don't think.
 

Hector

Senior Member
I think this is an interesting essay solely because it's a perspective you don't hear a lot. However, I think it could use more depth, more meat. It stays mostly on the surface. You could provide answers to common critiques of monarchy -- consider why people set up democracies in the first place, and respond to that. I also think the sixth point is rather irrelevant. The newness or oldness of an idea doesn't indicate its goodness or badness, I don't think.

Well, I could also say that most rebellions that abolished monarchies led to even worse and more totalitarian regimes (e.g England 1649, France 1789, Russia 1917) and, regarding the third point, that the Arab countries that were affected the least by the Arabic Spring events were those that were monarchies.

Also, regarding the sixth point, I could say that, even in democracies, most people choose which political party to vote for with the qualities of that party's leader being the sole criterion, which shows that our brains are wired for monarchy.
 

Sam

General
Patron
6. It was the norm for millennia.
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?

Ancient Greece has entered the chat.
 

CyberWar

Senior Member
Ancient Greece has entered the chat.


Asides from Athens, most Greek city-states were actually tyrannies, i.e. monarchies. Even Athens did have its periods of monarchic governance, the democratic system evolving more in reaction to the excesses of Athenian tyrants than because of any innate proclivity towards democratic governance.

So all in all, democracy is an exceedingly-rare phenomenon, always the exception rather than rule, up until the modern era, only truly proliferating in the aftermath of WWI with a number of new republics sprawling from the ashes of Europe's great empires.
 

Hector

Senior Member
Ancient Greece has entered the chat.

Monarchy occurred naturally to people whereas democracy had to be consciously discovered centuries after the first organized human societies came into being. It was applied in a very small part of the world and then nowhere for centuries. Ancient Athenians were about 30.000 That means that either those 30k people had discovered something exceptional and the rest of the planet were idiots that they did not follow their lead or that democracy is overrated indeed.
 
Top