I mean, even if you don't officially have a restricted suffrage democracy a monarchy with strong nobles operates the same more or less because the will of the aristocracy still matters even if on paper the monarch has absolute power.
It depends on the type of monarchy you have. But the big difference between a monarchy and a democracy is the monarch and aristocracy are invested in the well-being and prosperity of their subjects and lands. Their life, wealth and well-being of their entire family is directly connected to their actions.
Politicians in a democracy are rarely held accountable. In some democracies they're never held accountable. CEOs and other manager locusts can destroy companies, communities, the environment and will not only walk away scot-free but will also be paid millions for it.
A monarchy is comparable to a private family owned business where the family will lose everything if they fuck up while a democracy is a publicly traded corporation where no one is held accountable.
Democracies are in essence no different from corporations.
It depends on the type of monarchy you have. But the big difference between a monarchy and a democracy is the monarch and aristocracy are invested in the well-being and prosperity of their subjects and lands. Their life, wealth and well-being of their entire family is directly connected to their actions.
All well and good 300 years ago, now transport is so cheap and easy that street shitters can be shipped in as economic units.
If doesn't care at all about his own prestige and if he and his entire family wants to get lynched by his own people then he obviously can do that. If he gets replaced the situation can be improved rapidly.
If you replace the president in a democracy he first has to demolish the entire system and rebuild to achieve anything. Which is only possible by becoming a dictator. Hitler is the best example for that. He wouldn't have been able to achieve anything if he hadn't abolished democracy and radically cleaned house.
Democracy doesn't mean "checks -and-balances" on power. You can democratically elect a dictator not so different than how the Roman Senate appointed dictators when required.
Some monarchies have so many checks-and-balances on their power through whatever means (such as threats to family) that they too are unable to accomplish anything of note.
I mean, even if you don't officially have a restricted suffrage democracy a monarchy with strong nobles operates the same more or less because the will of the aristocracy still matters even if on paper the monarch has absolute power.
It depends on the type of monarchy you have. But the big difference between a monarchy and a democracy is the monarch and aristocracy are invested in the well-being and prosperity of their subjects and lands. Their life, wealth and well-being of their entire family is directly connected to their actions.
Politicians in a democracy are rarely held accountable. In some democracies they're never held accountable. CEOs and other manager locusts can destroy companies, communities, the environment and will not only walk away scot-free but will also be paid millions for it.
A monarchy is comparable to a private family owned business where the family will lose everything if they fuck up while a democracy is a publicly traded corporation where no one is held accountable.
Democracies are in essence no different from corporations.
All well and good 300 years ago, now transport is so cheap and easy that street shitters can be shipped in as economic units.
There's nothing stopping a King from owning foreign businesses and having all his prosperity tied to foreigners.
If doesn't care at all about his own prestige and if he and his entire family wants to get lynched by his own people then he obviously can do that. If he gets replaced the situation can be improved rapidly.
If you replace the president in a democracy he first has to demolish the entire system and rebuild to achieve anything. Which is only possible by becoming a dictator. Hitler is the best example for that. He wouldn't have been able to achieve anything if he hadn't abolished democracy and radically cleaned house.
Democracy doesn't mean "checks -and-balances" on power. You can democratically elect a dictator not so different than how the Roman Senate appointed dictators when required.
Some monarchies have so many checks-and-balances on their power through whatever means (such as threats to family) that they too are unable to accomplish anything of note.