Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Monarchy vs. Democracy
When it comes to monarchies, much of the modern world has rejected them, though the West used to be ruled by monarchs. Today, monarchs thrive in the Middle East, particularly in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where a monarchical system of government has enabled the UAE to bring stability and leadership. However, challenges remain, and this paper will describe the pros and cons of a system like UAE and compare it to that of democratic countries, whose prose and cons will also be described.
The pros of a monarchical system are that there is stability and consistency of vision and leadership. A monarch rules for life and the vision presented by the monarch can be implemented over a life time instead of rushed through in the brief span of a few years as is the case in democratic countries where elected leaders have term limits. The monarch can proceed more slowly and cautiously and adopt a long-term vision, whereas in democratic countries the vision is more short-term and reactive rather than proactive simply because the nature of the political system does not allow for long-term visions to be implemented slowly as that vision could change from one administration to the next. Monarchies are more stable in this respect.
With more stability there is also the opportunity to engage in reform and root out corruption. However, if the monarch himself is corrupt or appoints corrupt officials throughout his court, corruption can undermine the advantages of the system. This can lead to civil unrest, especially if the governed feel that the monarch looks more after his own self than after the needs of the people. If the people revolt the monarch may be toppled and he and his family removed from power through violent force—a threat that other countries may look to aggravate if they see in it some advantage for themselves. Thus, monarchies must be very careful not to lose the love and loyalty of the people.
In democracies there is already an in-built mechanism for removing people from power: elections. The election is held generally every four or six years, depending on the system that the democratic country has set up. The political leader must run for election and be voted into office. If the leader cannot obtain the necessary votes, he must leave office. Thus, there is a higher sense of accountability in a democratic country in terms of the people having a legitimate method of removing a leader from office. Still, corruption can occur, elections can be manipulated or stolen, and just because it is a democracy does not mean it is any guarantee that the will of the people will be represented.
One of the cons of the monarchical structure, however, is that it is difficult to...…well: the same well-financed groups that seek to influence government in democratic nations also seek to influence government in monarchies.
Monarchies can rule by edict, so long as they are absolute. If they are constitutional monarchies, the rulers have to abide by laws that are written in the constitution and it is not an absolute authority that the monarchy has. If it is an absolute monarchy, the ruler has absolute authority. It is actually similar to the situation that the President faces in the US: he must abide by the laws of the constitution, yet he can also rule by edict with Executive Orders, so long as they are not challenged and overturned by the Supreme Court (Lumen, 2020).
In conclusion, on the surface it may seem that monarchical systems of government and democratic systems of government are very different, but in reality they have more in common than meets the eye. Though democratic leaders are elected and typically face term limits, the deep state powers typically remain in place from one administration to the next. In monarchs, the power is vested for a lifetime in one person or family who rules with absolute authority. If it is a constitutional monarchy, the power of the ruler is limited by the laws of the constitution. In either type of government, however, there will be groups that seek to influence, either through money or through violence.
Spartan and Athenian constitutional and political systems. In the first part, an introduction of Athens and Sparta has been given. In the second part, both the forms of governments in Spartan and Athenian lands have been discussed. In the final part, a summary of the differences and similarities between the political systems of the two poleis have been included. Ancient Greece is well-known as the starting point of western civilization.
Democracy In some quarters, democracy has been regarded one of mankind's greatest institutional achievements. With that in mind, democracy as a concept has been subject to extensive research over time and in a way, these studies have helped us understand the very nature of democracy and democratization. In this text, I will briefly explore the British and the American constitution with an aim of finding out which of the two is
15). He argues that there is a duty resting on convention, which he considers in a deep and morally weighty sense, based on an implied but nonetheless binding contract between the individual and the state: It is a fact, then," they would say, "that you are breaking covenants and undertakings made with us, although you mad them under no compulsion of misunderstanding, and were not compelled to decide in a limited
Democracy In a fair and free election, the resultant outcome comes from the majority ruling of votes. In an ideal democratic environment, such votes are the consequence of all participant voters -- the legitimate populace as allowed for such voting -- and thus officials are elected in service of the majority of the peoples. However, this utopic democracy is limited in that not all participant voters are knowledgeable in decisions affecting
Politics - Country Case Study - Brazil Brazil's success during its early years is primarily owed to the fact that colonists were attracted by its potential and New World settlement promises meant to influence individuals into leaving their home in favor of a rich and fertile territory. In spite of the fact that the majority of Brazilians during the late nineteenth century consisted of African-Americans, the country's public rapidly diversified
France and Poland: A Study in Contrasts France and Poland: Study in Contrasts Few countries in Europe have such widely differing modern histories as France and Poland. Both began the modern era as ancient Catholic monarchies. Each nation covered a large expanse of territory and could claim, at least in theory, to be a power within its own region. There however, the comparison stops. France was a relatively well-organized, and fairly coherent state