What is your opinion of monarchism?

[Narwhalosh Whalescream]

Is it good or bad?

[Phon]

It's very shit.

[zorkuus]

It's very monarchistic.

[Wyrt]

Guillotines.

[Doctor Amadeus]

The idea that any one or group should rule by sheer providence?

EH fucking NO! We did that bullshit before and it was horrible, inbreeding, famine cruelty plagues, pretty much the fucking dark ages for a reason.

[Rathwirt]

I know it's not a popular opinion, but I do like the idea of a ruler actually being TRAINED to rule. But yeah, generally it's a bad system.

[Weeps]

The basic idea is obviously complete bullshit. On the other hand, in the very few cases where the monarch is/was actually benevolent and took an interest it his/hers subjects' well being, they were/are some of the most stable forms of government. But the price to pay for that slim chance is grossly too high.

This comment is 100% correct.

The best government is the "Benevolent Dictator."

Reason for that is it is much more responsive to the peoples' needs. Changes can happen faster.

But of course, as Medium9 said, too steep a price to pay for such a slim chance.

[Kallisto]

Absolute monarchies =/= No they can go die.

Constutional monarchies in which the monarch has no power in reality (even if on paper they supposedly do) like the UK? If you're already at this point then going to a republic is pretty much an expensive change with no real benefit. The Democratic part is there with the parliament or whatever and that is where the power lies with elections to change that.

For new countries. If you're seperating from a Republic, stick with a republic. From an absolute monarchy go republic. From a constitutional Monarchy, eh I'd say go republic but if you want to keep constitutional monarchy then it's your call.

[Goldielocks]

In theory they're more effective than democracy if the ruler is benevolent the country can turn out very well. Downside is that since their providence comes by blood there's no way to ensure that every ruler will be just (outside having a coup every century lol), which is why when looking at a country over the long term electing them is better.

I'd definitely say the idea of being a monarch is heavily romanticized. Most fiction depicts them heavily in an escapist lens but actually looking back on them in history it's not nearly as fun as it sounds.

[God Save The King]

I think monarchies have more extreme "swings" so to speak.

An exceptionally good monarch will be infinitely better than an exceptionally good administration in a democracy. However an exceptionally poor monarch is infinitely worse (which history has ample examples). Democracy partially serves to lessen the risk of poor leadership and allow for periodic corrections if leadership does not improve. The very nature of this, however, limits how good any democracy can be. Checks & balances along with minority powers tend to restrict their actions. Furthermore, regular elections ensure that leaders will never do something unpopular just because it is necessary, they would first need to spend a large amount of energy and resources shifting public opinion on a subject.

That's not to say that I think, overall, a monarchy system is better. No, history shows us how bad it can be. I think it's good to acknowledge the theoretical merits of any system, but accept that in practice the system tend to be worse overall. The main point of failure is that you are entrusting absolute power to a person. Who will, naturally, use that power to benefit themselves and those they care about. For an absolute power to be a good thing, it needs to be benevolent intrinsically.

[Lochton]

At the current, they are a good income and tourist attraction.

Though, bad as a deciding voice, which many aren't now a days.

[Theodarzna]

Ummmm, It can be alright, even perhaps a good thing to have some sort of historical grounding. And in a small scale society a chieftain or "King of this Hillfort" isn't necessarily the worst form of government since it provides the public with some sense of magical enchantment to what is otherwise dull and uninteresting affairs of beaurocracy.

A monarchy, over a vast multi-ethnic territory, could even prove to be a good thing as the King as a figurehead of the State is King/Queen of X, Y, Z ethnic group and this allows ethnic groups to go on without letting their obvious differences culturally and linguistically from turning into a blood bath. In a local setting, lets say a hillfort and surrounding villages its not a bad way to govern since presumably either the "King" has direct regular contact with the population they rule. A lot of problems emerge ofcourse when there becomes a great deal of distance between that kind of absolute ruler and the population they rule over.

But in the end, I kind of like the idea of a monarchy in general, but still favor the idea of a parliamentary body to advise and consent and actually do a lot of lawmaking.

[Spectral]

I grew up having a visceral disliking of it and I've more or less always felt that way. I still do. There's just something unsavory about granting any power to someone on the basis of their birth. That said, I think it's diplomatically useful to have a nearly permanent mouthpiece of your nation that's raised for that task from the start.

[Celista]

It is difficult for leaders who are born into massive wealth/privilege and the expectation that they will have nearly totalitarian power over their subjects to truly understand the wants and needs of their subjects. Monarchistic rulers can be intelligent and benevolent but most of the time they are neither and simply prone to personal indulgences. Admittedly this is a problem that is not limited to monarchism.

[downnola]

There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.

[breadisfunny]

Guillotines.

as the warqueen of the sin'dorei i agree guillotines for the draenei!

[Wyrt]

as the warqueen of the sin'dorei i agree guillotines for the draenei!

Too late, the elves are already headless.

[Flarelaine]

There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.

Any large and complex hierarchy and/or bureaucracy will separate decision-makers from street-level experience. As will wealth. Therefore, while your observation is valid, it is not exclusive to monarchies.

[Kasierith]

They're very stable forms of governance that can easily maintain consecutive lines of power for centuries without outside interference. If you're talking about the monarchy as the dominant political engine running a country, they tend to be very top heavy but are capable of responding rapidly to issues. For what that means in actual practice, and whether it is good or bad, is contingent on a lot more than just the concept of it being a monarchy.

[breadisfunny]

Too late, the elves are already headless.

no your thinking of zika elves.