Democracy or Monarchy?

>Democracy or Monarchy
Which is easier to get rid of assholes from the top job?

Democracy has the advantage of allowing legal coups.
Monarchy has the advantage that you hang the assholes you kick out instead of paying them a pension.

Trade-offs.

Elective monarchy

You can still hang the assholes in a democracy.

Depends on the overall situation.

It depends on the country.

If the 20th Century has taught us anything, it's that some countries are not ready for a democracy yet. They are not developed enough.

Autocracy works; we in the West had it ourselves for many centuries. It takes a very developed and educated country for the people to see value in a democracy, and therefore for a democracy to be sustainable.

This is why forcing democracies on people is such a bad idea. To many countries in the world it's just a foreign system, and thus they will fight hard to get rid of it.

If you think about it, autocracies are sort of democratic anyway. An autocratic leader can only rule if he is able to secure the support of enough people in his country; if he doesn't have such support then he will be overthrown.

The democratic process is just a formality really. Whether you're in a democracy or an autocracy, someone can only become leader if they can curry favour with the most powerful people in the country.

t. Shart in Mart

Yeah because that worked out so well in Russia and China right?

t. Capitalist scum

Elective Monarchy.

Democracy without a doubt. Kings are really hard to kill

Good point

Locally Autonomous Theocratic Protestant Democracy under the protection of the larger Supra-National Monarchy.

Why not both?

That is a Republic desu

Pretty sure it's called a Constitutional Monarchy actually. Republics don't tend to have monarchies.
See the 18th century for more details.

This. Our lovely country is a constitutional monarchy. I assume that places like the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain are the same.

Republics are the ones that have deposed their monarchies, e.g. France, Ireland, etc.

Autocracy > either.

Monarchy is a form of autocracy you fucking idiot.

Unless we're talking about constitutional monarchy, but those are almost always democracies, so I assume OP is talking about the autocratic version of monarchy, otherwise his question wouldn't really make sense.

In Britain though, the queen had no power, a figurehead. It's not really a monarchy in any form.

I'm not talking about a monarchy fitted to an autocratic theme, you moron.

A monarch can be an autocrat. Doesn't mean all monarchies are autocratic though. Many are powerless figureheads or have very little actual power.

A president can be autocratic however, or a prime minister, or a chancellor, or a general, etc...

But monarchies can and have largely been, autocratic.
Autocracy is a very wide category of rule.

She has constitutional powers, she just chooses not to wield them. I think people take for granted that they'd just get revoked if she started using them willy nilly, but they're there.

>constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy

I guess you're too stupid to read, that's a shame.

>constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy >constitutional monarchy

I guess you're too stupid to read as well

What on Earth is an "autocratic theme"

Do you even know how to speak English?

And majority of monarchies are not autocratic because they are largely powerless figureheads in today's times. Dictators are by nature, autocratic, so are oligarchies and military juntas for that matter.

Hello super faggot.

Oh its *that guy*, you're the retard on par with that dumb namefagging Turk roleplaying shitposter from last year. Please sudoku.

Why do you support dictatorships? Don't you like to impact how your country is run?

>muh slippery slope

Where did I say I supported dictators in that post?

>constitutional monarchy
>government working despite the monarch

...

Actually she does, she just rarely uses her powers

You aren't the autocracy guy? My bad.

How is it my fault that you're unable to read the English language? Haha, fucking idiots

Authoritarian democracy

That last part is completely wrong though. You only need the active support of a tiny percentage of the population. As long as the rest isn't willing or able to organize a revolt you are fine.

Pls. No more. It's the worst.

>someone can only become leader if they can curry favour with the most powerful people in the country.

>with the most powerful people in the country

Why is it that nobody is able to read today?

Is it International Dumbfucks Day or something? What the hell is going on?

You even post like an ESL. Neato.

>asian girl reaction images
You're still a virgin aren't you?

>ESL
I had to look that up; I'm British mate. Why don't you just accept that you didn't read my posts properly?

Monarchy will make brazil great again
ave glora,ave imperio

in brazil empire(1822-1889) we have the 3th large navy and the 5th economy

today in we have a bunch of communist drunk in power And we went through 6 strokes

Well I guess you learn something new everyday

And it is a monarchy, it's a constitutional monarchy. Same with most monarchies in the world today, apart from in the middle east, where they're absolute monarchies.

A constitutional monarchy is just any monarchy where there's a constitution, as the name implies, but in practice these constitutions almost always place limits on the power than can be exercised by the monarch

Crowned Republics if the executive/monarch don't do shit

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowned_republic

Super projecting there, ESL kun? Neato.

>I'm British.
Sure thing Raj.

Post more Japanese cuties.

C-code?

I'm actually glad a decent discussion was had before someone actually asked for source as per usual

It's in our human nature, user.

Whatever the case may be I'm simply stating that the posters here actually stuck to the discussion at hand as opposed to jumping to the question as I see on the other boards when a picture like this is posted.

monarchy with a democratic option to depose a royal if there is enough consensus that their rule is detrimental to the people and the nation.

Constitutional Monarchy

Give me the jav identification code for that pic and nobody gets hurt

Anyway both, see UK

Well threads with OP pics like this should be automatically deleted

The answer do not lie in the political system BUT IN THE POWER OF THE CITIZENS

Thus, i take a system were there is no police and army and only armed citizens, and where the justice-security is directly done by citizens.

Monarchy

Alexander Hamilton pls go

>UK
Looks like the Kaiser was a crypto-British monarch.

Let there not be many rulers. Let there be one ruler, one king.

>Autocracy works; we in the West had it ourselves for many centuries

Lmao absolutism barely lasted two centuries in Europe and was concomitant with the rise of bureaucracy, you have no grasp of history. Feudalism was not autocratic, the monarchy under it was relatively weak.

WNB?

>An autocratic leader can only rule if he is able to secure the support of enough people in his country; if he doesn't have such support then he will be overthrown.

Wow it's almost like democracy allows a change of government without mass bloodshed.

Monarchy, always.
But that doesn't mean we could just flick the switch and have it work perfectly.

Is that meant to be a good thing?

Careful around those edges user

Not him but democracy leads to polarization. Both sides pulling against each other stagnating government function.

It's not efficient. Bloodletting on a large scale would wipe out dissent and align the body politic in one direction.

History will show that Democracy was a mistake

>It's not efficient.
At achieving what?

Move to Syria.

Anything really.

Democracy is schizophrenic.

I would but Democracy has ruined it

>There are people in this thread RIGHT NOW who do not believe that absolute monarchy is THE BEST form of government
>Mfw

>Wanting stable government
>edgy
Basically, if you're not willing to go to the barricades for it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal, and you should let the government try to improve.

Merchant republic

PAX TIBI MARCE EVANGELISTA MEUS

Pilgrim Iran?

History has proven the triumph of democratic institutions over authoritarian ones time and time again. The issue is that democracy (In the sense of that practiced by the modern first-world) requires a certain degree of groundwork before it can be attempted. This includes having some semblance of a national identity, a tradition of somewhat centralized government that can provide services to the people, a public idea of the "rule of law" instead of might makes right, and a populace that maintains at least some level of education and literacy. The reason the so-called democracies of the third-world have failed is because they had none of the aforementioned. They were cargo-cult governments that that tried to ape the end point of the first-world without all the necessary components.

Secondly the idea that an authoritarian system, whether absolute or oligarchical, is less corrupt than a modern democracy is simply laughable. an authoritarian system REQUIRES corruption in order to function. Let me put it like this, any authoritarian leader maintains his power through the loyalty of privileged groups. In the case of a feudal monarchy it's the landed aristocracy, in the case of a modern junta it's the military. In all cases the authoritarian must serve those groups needs instead of the nations. If he does not those groups withdraw their support and he is overthrown. This means that the state is specifically designed to cripple itself for the betterment of the autocrats supporters over the interests of the nation. In a word, corruption. Thus because the law is not actually meant to address their needs, the population must turn to either illegality or revolution in order to survive, both of which are harmful to the well being of the nation. As for the belief that democracies cannot produce great leaders America alone provides several counters to that claim. Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, FDR, Washington, Adams, and more were all able to be strong and powerful leaders capable of both pushing thorough rapid reforms and guide the nation through crises’ while remaining subject to the rule of law and the democratic process. But what about the bad ones? A bad monarch or other dictator can destroy his nation utterly, meanwhile it is generally agreed Nixon was the Worst president yet the nation was able to chug along without falling into ruin and get rid of him without a civil war or a coup.

Man, the way the Brazillian Empire ended is just so stupid.