USA: +1-206-973-7012 
Sign in
Forms of Government: Monarchy and Democracy
A monarchy refers to a type of governing that is characterized by power absolutism being accorded to a single person or a group of persons. Within the political framework, the chief leader in a monarchy is referred to as the monarch and cannot be overthrown or detached from power until their demise or uncoerced personal resignation. This form of governance was eminent in the primeval and medieval settings and it was known as the absolute monarchy. There are three other types of monarchies namely limited, elective and constitutional monarchies. The constitutional monarchy is bound by constitution meaning that it lacks absolute power and examples include UK, Belgium, Japan and Thailand. The limited monarchy is in actuality the constitutional form but in its early development state before the constitution has been developed. The elective monarchy has three countries practicing it, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates and Pope as the head of the Vatican City State (Starkey, 2006).
Monarchies are portrayed by different elements. First, absolute power is accorded to the ruler but this cannot holistically sum-up the government setting since monarchial variations such as the constitutional monarchy is also considered a type of monarchy although it lacks unlimited power. Inherited rule is another characteristic of the monarchial type of government with an exception of the elective setting. Presently, forty-four nations practice this type of government and sixteen of these nations are ruled by Queen Elizabeth II as their political head. Democracy on the other hand may be taken as the inverse of a monarch. In this type of governance, citizens impose the rules in the country. This is achieved by direct or representative democracy. In the former category, citizens are directly involved in state management while in the latter setting, citizens often select several individuals that act as their voice concerning different issues that may arise in the state. Democracies are generally typified by parity and liberty towards all citizens. Each person as well as the views he/she may hold are all treated as equal (Putnam, 2002).
Pros attributed to a monarchy include, first, decision-making is uncomplicated, decisive and speedy since only the leader is involved. Thomas Hobbes a political theorist in the 16th and 17th centuries lived under a monarchial setting yet he was able to review the democratic, aristocratic and parliamentary settings. From the pros and cons he gathered, he believed that monarchy was supreme due to the single rule that makes decision and dispute settling proponents easy. Secondly, the setting allows the leader to have absolute and superior authority over the military. In Latin America, religious and armed forces leaders advocated for the monarchical setting during the regimes of Bourbons and the Habsburgs since they believed that this form of governance amounted to greater social integration through the consolidation of all authorities under a single head (Starkey, 2006).
Thirdly, the leadership style instills a level of discipline in the authoritative body by the fact that an element of constancy is infused in the long-term headship. This gives stability to the nation. Fourth, there is an operational efficiency achieved through the lack of law-making institutions. France’s Louis XIV is believed to have had a supreme nation when contrasted with Charles I of England. Louis practiced monarchy that gave him greater control over the financial, communal and political components of the state; leading to a better stability and organization as opposed to England that had a parliamentary approach. Lastly, the form of government has the ability to infuse a high level of state identity and patriotism.
Cons attached to a monarchy include, first, the autonomous decision-making has a high propensity towards dictatorship and/or hasty decisions that have a negative impact on the state. Feudalism that is viewed as an unfair and capitalistic rule of the upper class over the local populace serves as the origin of absolute monarchy. Constitutional monarchy led to the rise of fascism, a tyrannical form of leadership, in Italy under the rule of King Victor Emmanuel III. This happened through the appointment of Mussolini as the state’s Prime Minister (Starkey, 2006). Historical evidence relays that every two in three fascist countries have evolved from constitutional monarchies. Secondly, more often that never, the citizens needs are not represented in the regime. The successors are either appointed or handed over the rule from their blood ties and the public does not have a voice in this.
Thirdly, there is biased political sentiments and imprudent succession that inhibits proper leadership styles as they are not based on competency levels. Queen Victoria opposed an open government in the 19th century upon the realization that the authorities would accord a higher degree of autonomy to Ireland and India. Prince Charles often interfered with the country’s leadership style through his unfair policies and dictating to the Prime Minister Tony Blair as well as Gordon Brown on how the nation should be managed. Fourth, no room exists for an advisory board to help the ruler with decision-making. Lastly, since only through the demise or resignation of a leader can the government change, some individuals resort to rebellions and wars or the ruling regime can resort to killing people who oppose its style of leadership (Starkey, 2006). Japan being a constitutional monarchy indulged into war in the year 1932 where Inukai Tsuyoshi, the prime minister, was murdered for trying to enhance an open form of rule that was a threat to the ruling regime.
Democratic pros initially lie in the ability to solve some cons associated with monarchy. First, the ability of the people to vote for their leaders promotes justice and equality to all willing candidates therefore eliminating the problem of heredity, biased views, dictatorial and incompetent leaders (Putnam, 2002). Secondly, the citizens are well represented in the government and their voices concerning different issues are amplified through the ballot process. Through this, the society’s low class is equally represented just as the high class is. Third, there is a clear division between nation and church affairs where each is accorded different treatment. As seen in the monarchy setting, the church had a lot of power in the determination of state politics and it often resulted to biased representation. Fourth, civil rights groups like human rights, workers and trade unions are able to fight for the welfare of their members. The black movement rights in the 20th century led by famous individuals like Martin Luther King, William Du Bois, Malcolm X just to mention a few were founded on the proponents of democracy (Putnam, 2002). Through this, the minority group that consisted of the blacks was able to acquire employment, social equity and voting rights.
Fifth, the president relies on expert advice and the citizen’s views before any major decision is undertaken and this promotes healthy state and citizens relations. Some of the cons associated with democratic regimes are, first, the problem of corruption. Democracy has not been able to check the problem of power killings. Assassinations are still rampant in the government systems in the bid to acquire some given level of power. Secondly, decision-making is very slow as attributed to the debates and voting processes before any decision can be made. This has been known to have dire consequences on the state. Third, the majority wins rule is used to resolve debates. The problem lies in the fact that being majority doe not mean that the decision is right or prudent; the minority may actually be right (Putnam, 2002). Having analyzed both types of government, it is evident that they are both advantageous and disadvantageous. With today’s setting, the democratic form of governance would be better received as it tends to amplify the concerns of its citizens and therefore establishing equity and social welfare.
Works Cited:
Putnam, Robert. Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. Print.
Starkey, David. Monarchy: From the Middle Ages to Modernity. Singapore: Harper Press, 2006. Print.
