Monarchism is less dysfunctional than Democracy

[CroakandDagger]

Democracy by its very nature is necessarily a tyranny of the majority. This means that any demographic that breeds at a rate that far exceeds any other can establish a stranglehold over the reins of power in any democratic state, holding the government to ransom in exchange for the votes of its constituent members. This has to be accepted by those of minority groups who do not assent because they were at least given the chance to vote, even if their votes were ultimately irrelevant overall. This serves as something of a pressure release on political tension and frustration: a person can hardly be seen to be justified in revolt if they have been given the chance to object in the voting booth, can they?

Take, on the other hand, a state where all the power rests in the hands of a single individual: a monarch or a dictator. This dictator is naturally of a group, but cannot solely serve the needs of his or her group at the expense of all others, for their authority is derived not from a mandate from the masses but their own perceived legitimacy. If they are observed to be unfair and less than even-handed with their subjects, they run the risk of being deposed and losing their authority altogether.

To a dictator, perhaps, this is not so large a concern: they have only one lifetime with which to build up discontent among the people they rule, after which they will be replaced by another - or, as has happened in history, upon their death the country that they ruled may return to a state of mob rule under a republican or a democratic system.

A monarchy, however, must consider the reputation of their dynasty among their subjects. If a series of selfish and uncaring monarchs bent all of their efforts solely to increasing their personal wealth and power, indulging in extravagance while neglecting the populace, they would not only delegitimise their own authority, but in the eyes of the People they would delegitimise the very institution of Monarchy.

A wise Monarch, therefore, must always act in the interests of the whole of their realm: serving all of their subjects so as not to damage the state that they leave to their heirs or the mandate that they pass on in similar fashion.

Contrast this necessary care and attention with the obligations of democratic representatives. No true democracy has mechanics to allow for dynastic politics and in western societies Nationalism is demonised and pathologised. As such, there is no motivation for elected officials to serve their nation at all - there is no pragmatic self-interest in leaving a well-functioning realm to their successors because their successors are likely to be their rivals: and tending to the nation out of love for the nation and its people would be decried as Nationalism - as evil - by the press.

Therefore, the only thing for elected officials to do is to serve themselves - so is it any surprise that that is what they are seen to do?

[Tom Bombadil]

Are you arguing that monarchy is preferable to democracy? It seems like you've come short of that conclusion but I may be misinterpreting.

But as far as monarchy being less dysfunctional or more efficient that is certainly true - there is just fewer moving parts in a monarchy.

[JECE]

"a person can hardly be seen to be justified in revolt if they have been given the chance to object in the voting booth, can they?"
Ever heard of a civil war?

"A wise Monarch, therefore, must always act in the interests of the whole of their realm"
Or they can get imperialist help from outside like the Bahraini monarchy does.

"As such, there is no motivation for elected officials to serve their nation at all - there is no pragmatic self-interest in leaving a well-functioning realm to their successors because their successors are likely to be their rivals"
Taking an introductory philosophy course, are we?

"in western societies Nationalism is demonised and pathologised"
Nationalism is on the march almost everywhere in the the West. Even before this recent trend, nationalism has held a dominant place in western discourse. I personally do demonize nationalism, especially ethnic nationalism, because these sentiments lead directly towards war and death, but people who think like me are easily less than 10% of the population. Politicians are even more nationalistic than the average lay person.

[Incrementalist]

...a monarch or a dictator... their authority is derived not from a mandate from the masses but their own perceived legitimacy. If they are observed to be unfair and less than even-handed with their subjects, they run the risk of being deposed

If they run the risk of being deposed, their authority is derived from a mandate from the masses, just not an orderly and regularly scheduled mandate.

Once you've introduced the requirement for accountability in a ruler, you've raised the question of how to enforce that accountability. Democracies have elections; autocracies have a blank space, which is dangerous.

Now, a completely unaccountable ruler is probably the least "dysfunctional" option but it serves the interests of the fewest people. Avoiding dysfunctionality is not the highest priority of humane governance.

[yavuzovic]

If there's a majority that can select someone without coalition, this is the majorities will, but if there's a lot of different idea - or a strong opponent, democracy shows a mixed government or the selection of the biggest majority - but not not the majority of the entire voters.

For instance, percentage of votes are these:
A: %30 - a ideology
B:%25 - b ideology
C: %20 - c ideology
...and smaller percentages.
If A can be selected without coalition %70 of the voters would be dissatisfied.
THOUGH MOST OF DEMOCRATIC REGIMES DOESN'T LET THIS HAPPEN.
Instead they serves us coalitions. But what if a, b and c are contradicting?

That's not about monarchy but these are my negative opinions about Democracy.

[TrPrado]

Rights of the minority laws don't solely rest in the right to vote. Tyranny of the majority lies in the majority voting in such a manor as to explicitly target the minority, but when the government is explicitly bound not to carry out certain actions then the violation of rights is less feasible, making a democracy that binds itself in such a way not a tyranny of the majority. This is the point of several amendments to the United States Constitution, most notably the Bill of Rights.

Relating to your point on dynasties, I'm not sure what you mean that democratic governments don't allow for them. They're very unpopular but they consistently happen. Not only in family ties like the Bush, Kennedy, Adams, Clinton, etc. families in the US or the Trudeau family in Canada and so on and so on in most countries that have elections, but also in that politicians are for the most part mentored by their predecessors on how to keep an even head and what behavior in their chamber looks like. Parliamentary procedure doesn't come naturally.

I would say more but it appears that others have covered a fair amount.

[Octavious]

Your figures don't quite ring true with reality, yavu. Of the people eligible to vote the percentages are more like this:

A: %10 - a ideology
B:%8 - b ideology
C: %7 - c ideology
D: %25 - don't really care, but voted anyway out of a sense of civic duty
E: %50 - don't really care and didn't bother to vote

The vast majority are happy enough regardless who wins, and regardless of whether there's a coalition or not. Good thing too, because it doesn't take a huge number of suitably pissed off people to make life a nightmare for those in charge.

[Jamiet99uk]

elected officials

Elected officials?

In general in a functional democracy I would say there should be a clear distinction between elected *representatives*, who are not officials, and whose role is to determine state policy, and the *officials* whose job it is to carry out state policy, and who are not elected.

That's the way it generally is in the UK.

[ckroberts]

Even this slightest acquaintance with history indicates these characterizations of democracy and monarchy/dictatorship are false.

Monarchies and dictatorships almost universally benefit a small portion of the population, not the majority, and countless rulers have governed solely for their own wealth and benefit without being overthrown. [ETA: Democracies are inherently more effective at building coalitions and popular support.] There's a reason that every major total war since the French Revolution has been won by the more representative government or alliance led by the more representative government.

Nationalism is not demonized, even though it should be because it's bad (and your comment that "any demographic that breeds at a rate that far exceeds any other can establish a stranglehold over the reins of power" is distasteful given the history around such declarations). This idea alone, that nobody in the west thinks you can act for national benefit, suggests a total absence of any knowledge of larger political, social, and cultural realities, not to mention suggesting that serious response to this post may be a waste of time.

[Incrementalist]

But what if a, b and c are contradicting?

If a, b, and c are contradicting, then people will simply have to live with those contradictions if they intend to form a coalition based on whatever it is that they actually agree on.

Ideologies aren't matter and antimatter, and people don't fall over saying "that does not compute" when faced with contradictions. On the contrary, people embrace contradictions all the time, and only get flustered when they're asked to explain them.

[yavuzovic]

Yes, of course people have to live with contradictions. Every person has contradictions - nobody's ideas are same.
But contradictions between the government parts may cause internal disagreements.
Do you understand what I am talking about? People usually doesn't want to work under a government that doesn't like their ideas.

But anyway, actually Octavius is right. Most of the people don't care the results of elections. But if we think that my percentages are the percentages of the people have voted, any if our example country's attendance is high, there will be a lot of dissatisfied person.

Despite it's disadvantages Democracy is still the best option. There's no way to satisfy all the people so we must satisfy the majority. A monarch scenario would bring more dissatisfied person. Until we find a better system, we will continue using it. (Unless a dictator makes a coup.)

[dargorygel]

And perhaps a further split of "democracy" into those governments that are more republican and less republican. (Obviously not referring to 'party' here... but rather the number of people actually involved in decision-making.) With British Parlimentarianism being farther along the "democracy" line than American Congressionalism.

[President Eden]

Don’t know if I agree with the explicit premise of the thread. I’m sympathetic to the direction of the point though.

I think monarchies have greater variance to their possible outcomes than democracies. A great monarch will be able to rule more competently and efficiently than any democratic leadership, as he has no one to whom he ultimately answers — he will be able to implement his policies and vision without obstruction. If he is a great ruler, then he will do more good for his kingdom than his democratic equivalents.
However, if he is a poor ruler, he will lead his country to ruin without obstruction. Democracy’s strength in this axis of comparison is that the same system of checks and balances which restrains the great ruler from doing what he wishes is that it also restrains the poor ruler from his.

Which system is better overall is a difficult ask and depends on many factors. Large, multicultural states exacerbate the tendency of democratic governments to err on the side of inaction, as inevitable factionalism grinds the gears of governance to a screeching halt. Small, homogeneous states are better equipped to overcome factionalist tendencies. The Ancient Greeks’ concept of the polis is a great example of the latter at work.

[Octavious]

Just double checking... None of us actually think a monarchy is a good way of running a country, do we? This is a joke thread, yes? There are times when it's hard to tell

[GrandMoffWatson]

lolwut.jpg

[CroakandDagger]

No man, i'm dead serious. We need to grant powers back to the crown and retake the Empire.

[yavuzovic]

You find a family consist of clever and strong people, I'll be supporting them to be our monarchs. It's hard to maintain the strength of dynasty. Also there will be lots of throne opponent even if you will find the best people for the throne.
World isn't like the past. People think rational and personal. If everybody work for the whole country's interest, monarchy could be a solution.

[VashtaNeurotic]

Eh, technocracy solves

[CroakandDagger]

Technocracy's garbage tbh, barely better than theocracy. You know a cabal of """experts""" is just going to enforce their orthodoxy on a population.

[Wusti]

The fact that you lot are even debating this issue is hilarious and a sign of the times.

One has only to point to Spain as an example for all of these ills - separatist movements within a constitutional monarchy.

There are no silver bullet because people are:

1. Greedy
2. Stupid
3. Lazy

These traits account for the majority of human interactions and as such debating the system of least evil is moot until these fundamental characteristics are taken into account.

tldr: Silly discussion from people who take their freedoms for granted to the extent that they question their value.