Monarchy vs. Democracy: Pros, Cons, and Comparisons

Introduction

Much of the modern world has rejected monarchy, though the West was once ruled by monarchs. Today, monarchies thrive in the Middle East — particularly in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — where a monarchical system of government has enabled the country to achieve stability and strong leadership. Nevertheless, challenges remain. This paper describes the pros and cons of a monarchical system such as the UAE's and compares it to democratic systems of government, whose own advantages and disadvantages are also examined.

Pros of Monarchical Government

The primary advantages of a monarchical system are stability and consistency of vision and leadership. A monarch rules for life, meaning that his vision can be implemented gradually over decades rather than rushed through in the brief span of a few years, as is often the case in democratic countries where elected leaders face term limits. The monarch can proceed deliberately and adopt a long-term vision, whereas democratic leaders tend toward short-term, reactive policies rather than proactive ones. This is simply because the nature of a democratic political system does not allow for long-term visions to be implemented slowly — any such vision could change from one administration to the next. In this respect, monarchies offer greater stability.

With greater stability comes the opportunity to pursue reform and root out corruption. However, if the monarch himself is corrupt, or appoints corrupt officials throughout his court, corruption can undermine the very advantages of the system. This can lead to civil unrest, particularly if the governed feel that the monarch is more concerned with his own interests than with the needs of the people. If the people revolt, the monarch may be toppled and he and his family removed from power by force — a threat that foreign powers may seek to exploit if they see strategic advantage in doing so. For this reason, monarchies must be very careful not to lose the loyalty and goodwill of the people.

Cons of Monarchical Government

One significant disadvantage of the monarchical structure is that it is difficult to implement change to the governmental infrastructure. Because power tends to be concentrated in one individual or family, change typically occurs only from within — unless an external revolution takes place. The democratic nation of the United States was itself formed following one such revolution, in which the authority of the English king was rejected by the American colonists. It required a war for the colonists to establish their own sovereignty.

Still, monarchs tend to enjoy a higher degree of credibility than democratic leaders, especially when they are able to withstand violent revolutionary challenges within their own regions, as the Brookings Institution (2013) demonstrates. If an uprising occurs — as happened in parts of the Middle East during the Arab Spring — monarchs who are able to suppress such challenges demonstrate their power and authority. They reinforce their credibility as rulers and reassure the public that they remain in control, rather than ceding ground to rebel groups that are often financed from abroad.

Pros and Cons of Democratic Government

In democracies, there is already a built-in mechanism for removing leaders from power: elections. Elections are held generally every four or six years, depending on the system the democratic country has established. A political leader must run for office and receive enough votes to govern. If the leader cannot obtain the necessary votes, he or she must leave office. This creates a stronger sense of accountability in a democratic country, since citizens have a legitimate and peaceful method of removing a leader they no longer support. Nevertheless, corruption can still occur, elections can be manipulated or stolen, and democracy alone is no guarantee that the will of the people will be faithfully represented.

In democratic countries, it takes considerably more effort for political leaders to establish credibility, and it is equally easy to lose it. Any display of weakness will be exploited by political opponents at election time. Opposition groups use political action committees funded by large donations from special interest groups and lobbies to shape public opinion. As Katz (2019) notes, in a democratic country it is often these special interest groups and lobbies that wield the greatest power, because they command seemingly unlimited sums of money with which to create advertising campaigns, influence media companies through investments, and pursue other means of influence. Democratic nations are supposedly committed to government of and by the people, but the reality is that special interest groups and lobbies frequently hold more sway over elections than ordinary citizens do.

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. Although democratic leaders are elected and typically face term limits, entrenched power structures often remain in place from one administration to the next. In monarchies, power is vested for a lifetime in one person or family who rules with absolute or near-absolute authority. If it is a constitutional monarchy, that power is limited by the laws of the constitution. In either type of government, however, there will be groups — wielding either money or the threat of violence — that seek to influence those in power.

References

Brookings Institution. (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

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/