Given how difficult it seems to be to stem the tide of corruption, one wonders if it might not be better to have a monarch than a senate.
Yes, it is. Dictatorships have their own problems but 'democracy' is a system that has corruption baked into it's very foundation. Democracy is basically a synonym for deception and corruption.
A monarch who for all intents and purposes owns the country has a vested interest in his country prospering as his own wealth and prestige is tied to it. Also the royal family is interested in the monarch not doing stupid shit because if shit hits the fan their heads will be on the chopping block too.
Taking total control of a monarchy is pretty much impossible. Once the monarch gets disposed you have to start over again and you are in very real danger of the new guy going after you if he is aware of you.
While in a democracy you don't actually give a fuck about who is leading the country as you have control of the system itself by subverting the media, the governmental institutions, finance, industry etc. Politicians change but the rot in the system remains. So even if the new guy is aware of you trying to get rid of you is pretty much impossible unless he turns the country into a dictatorship.
You can of course do all that in a monarchy/dictatorship too but you'll have to be extremely careful as the second the monarch/dictator becomes aware of you and he has the loyalty of his people and military he can wipe out all your gains overnight.
That's why first Europe was democratized and since the end of WW2 the rest of the world too.
For a democracy to be immune against corruption you need to have a population that is highly aware of what's going on and will use violence if necessary. But when you have such a population what's the point of voting in the first place? It's a waste of time and just makes everything less efficient.
Yes, it is. Dictatorships have their own problems but 'democracy' is a system that has corruption baked into it's very foundation. Democracy is basically a synonym for deception and corruption.
A monarch who for all intents and purposes owns the country has a vested interest in his country prospering as his own wealth and prestige is tied to it. Also the royal family is interested in the monarch not doing stupid shit because if shit hits the fan their heads will be on the chopping block too.
Taking total control of a monarchy is pretty much impossible. Once the monarch gets disposed you have to start over again and you are in very real danger of the new guy going after you if he is aware of you.
While in a democracy you don't actually give a fuck about who is leading the country as you have control of the system itself by subverting the media, the governmental institutions, finance, industry etc. Politicians change but the rot in the system remains. So even if the new guy is aware of you trying to get rid of you is pretty much impossible unless he turns the country into a dictatorship.
You can of course do all that in a monarchy/dictatorship too but you'll have to be extremely careful as the second the monarch/dictator becomes aware of you and he has the loyalty of his people and military he can wipe out all your gains overnight.
That's why first Europe was democratized and since the end of WW2 the rest of the world too.
For a democracy to be immune against corruption you need to have a population that is highly aware of what's going on and will use violence if necessary. But when you have such a population what's the point of voting in the first place? It's a waste of time and just makes everything less efficient.