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.
Democracy doesn't mean "checks -and-balances" on power.
Yes, it does.
You can democratically elect a dictator
Yes, you can democratically vote to abolish democracy.
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.
Yes. A monarchy is anything but a flawless system. But it at the very least isn't designed to bullshit you into thinking you're the one in charge while allowing subversive elements to control every layer of the system making it impossible to change the system from within. Because it is fundamentally designed that way.
If a monarch gets deposed the subversive elements might not just lose control over the nation but are in very real danger of getting killed themselves. If the president or ruling party changes literally nothing changes unless.... you do it like Hitler and get rid of democracy.
Democracy doesn't mean "checks -and-balances" on power.
Yes, it does.
In Canada for example, the Prime Minister has essentially the same power as a dictator outside of the separation of powers set in the Constitution. Without such a document, which isn't required in a Democracy and which can still exist in a Constitutional Monarchy), the Prime Minister would be no different than a dictator.
Not sure why you're arguing this. Nothing about a democracy says the guy who is elected can't act like a dictator.
Edit - Honestly, it sounds to me like it's not democracy you hate but bureaucracy.
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.
Yes, it does.
Yes, you can democratically vote to abolish democracy.
Yes. A monarchy is anything but a flawless system. But it at the very least isn't designed to bullshit you into thinking you're the one in charge while allowing subversive elements to control every layer of the system making it impossible to change the system from within. Because it is fundamentally designed that way.
If a monarch gets deposed the subversive elements might not just lose control over the nation but are in very real danger of getting killed themselves. If the president or ruling party changes literally nothing changes unless.... you do it like Hitler and get rid of democracy.
In Canada for example, the Prime Minister has essentially the same power as a dictator outside of the separation of powers set in the Constitution. Without such a document, which isn't required in a Democracy and which can still exist in a Constitutional Monarchy), the Prime Minister would be no different than a dictator.
Not sure why you're arguing this. Nothing about a democracy says the guy who is elected can't act like a dictator.
Edit - Honestly, it sounds to me like it's not democracy you hate but bureaucracy.