Comparison of monarchy and democracy

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 implement change to the governmental infrastructure. Because power tends to be invested in one individual or family, change only occurs internally in most cases—unless an external revolution occurs. The democratic nation of the US was formed following one such revolution in which the English king’s power was rejected by the colonists in America. It took a war for the colonists to assert their own authority.
Still, monarchs tend to have a higher degree of credibility than democratic leaders, especially if they are able to withstand violent revolutionary activities within their own regions, as the Brookings Institute (2013) shows. If there is an uprising, as occurred in parts of the Middle East with the Arab Spring, those monarchs who are able to put down these uprisings demonstrate their power and authority. They establish their credibility as rulers and convince the public that they are in control—not a group of rebels who are usually financed from abroad.
In democratic countries, it takes a lot more effort for political leaders to establish their own credibility and it is very easy for them to lose it, too. Any demonstration of weakness will be used by political opponents at election time. Oppositional groups will work the public with their own political action committees and they will fund them with large donations from special interest groups and lobbies. In a democratic country, it is often the special interest groups and lobbies that have all the power because they have seemingly unlimited sums of money with which to create ad campaigns, influence media companies through investments, and other means (Katz, 2019). Democratic nations are supposedly focused on government for and by the people, but the reality is that special interest groups and lobbies are more powerful than the people and influence elections to a much greater extent than the people do.
In a monarchy, the ruler controls the wealth and so long as he is not forced to borrow from lenders his influence in the realm is unimpeded. The control of capital is a major factor in the guaranteeing of monarchical power, and when monarchs go bankrupt their influence wanes. In the Middle East, monarchs control much of the wealth in their countries, so this is not as great of an issue as it is in countries where democracy is the governmental structure and money from special interest groups can determine who is elected and who is voted out of office.
Thus, the cons of democracy are that it is not always a truly representative form of government like it is purported to be. The levers of power are often hidden from the public and though there is the aura of accountability the reality is that the individuals who wield the true levers of influence and power in democratic nations exist behind the scenes and are not elected or accountable in any real way. These are often the wealthy individuals, individuals like Bill Gates or George Soros who have a great deal of expendable capital that they can use to influence government. Even in the US today there are minor revolutions going on with organized mobs that are reported to be linked to George Soros’ Open Society Foundation (Soskis, 2017). Still, monarchs must contend with those who seek to undermine their authority as 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.
References
Brookings Institute. (2013). Kings for all seasons. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Resilience-Arab-Monarchies_English.pdf
Katz, N. (2019). How super pacs shape u.s. Elections with advertisements that portray candidates in ways publicly identified campaign ads often avoid. Retrieved from https://scholars.org/contribution/how-super-pacs-shape-us-elections-advertisements-portray-candidates-ways-publicly
Lumen. (2020). Forms of government. Retrieved from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-herkimer-introsociology/chapter/reading-forms-of-government/
Soskis, B. (2017). George Soros and the Demonization of Philanthropy. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/12/soros-philanthropy/547247/