In principle, it would work since there's one thing more important to a monarchy than a democracy: Legacy
You don't want to be the King remembered as weak and ineffectual nor do you want to be a ruler that left things in ruins for your heir to take over after you. That's why you focus on having good statesmen and talented advisors to ensure your country grows more powerful and stable for your future offspring to take over.
Of course in reality, the guardian might be suggesting this now since Charles is in charge but it seems from current events he's following his mother's example. He rejected going to that climate summit despite everyone trying to pressure him to go and has been a lot more reserved. So ironically, if they make him absolute ruler he might be good!
You're absolutely right. This is one advantage that I didn't immediately think of, but it makes a lot of sense. Under a democracy, you're only ruling for like four years so what investment do you have in ruling well?
You can make a mess and let the next idiots clean up the mess that you created. If they even bother doing so.
And when mediocrity or terrible performance becomes the norm, it just becomes part of the system.
And yes, it's likely that The Guardian is only suggesting this for Charles. Some people called him a WEF shill, but I think that he's as yet unproven so things could go either way. Let's hope he proves loyal to his country instead of the WEF.
In principle, it would work since there's one thing more important to a monarchy than a democracy: Legacy
You don't want to be the King remembered as weak and ineffectual nor do you want to be a ruler that left things in ruins for your heir to take over after you. That's why you focus on having good statesmen and talented advisors to ensure your country grows more powerful and stable for your future offspring to take over.
Of course in reality, the guardian might be suggesting this now since Charles is in charge but it seems from current events he's following his mother's example. He rejected going to that climate summit despite everyone trying to pressure him to go and has been a lot more reserved. So ironically, if they make him absolute ruler he might be good!
You're absolutely right. This is one advantage that I didn't immediately think of, but it makes a lot of sense. Under a democracy, you're only ruling for like four years so what investment do you have in ruling well?
You can make a mess and let the next idiots clean up the mess that you created. If they even bother doing so.
And when mediocrity or terrible performance becomes the norm, it just becomes part of the system.
And yes, it's likely that The Guardian is only suggesting this for Charles. Some people called him a WEF shill, but I think that he's as yet unproven so things could go either way. Let's hope he proves loyal to his country instead of the WEF.