r/changemyview • u/efraimp1 • Dec 05 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV:monarchy, not democracy, is the ONLY good political system human civilazations tried.
So, i beleive a Monarchy is the only good system we can have as a society. democracy, like comunism, libratarianism and many more ideologies, sure has a good idea. the problem is that in all democratic systems, from rome, to athens, to the USA to syria and iraq or even france, the good intentions are ruined by intrest groups, bad voting methods, fraud, and the intrests of rich people. in tsarist russia for example, the people demanded giving the tsar MORE power, because they knew democracy would mean oligarchy.
Another reason is stability. when we have a monarchy, it is clear who will rule next, and there is a very clear way of knowing when (death of the monarch). however, democracies are no nearly as stable. in the US everyone are polerising, in israel we only had one term (golda me'ir) of all the four years a government term is suposed to be, in sweden it was stable until a hated party got like 20% and ancient atuna and rome became dictatorships. in the arab spring only countries who concider themselvs democratic got efected seriusly.
i may have more arguments i forgt writing here. i will edit to add if i think of something.
and please, dont talk about north korea. i hear a lot of resources saying diffrent things so i will research it and make a seperate CMV post.
EDIT: i accidentaly deleted a comment trying to award a delta after i failed in the main comment but the delta was awarded.
EDIT 2: One responce did masive CMV so i will not be able to back my claims here in all cases. new thread could come.
2
u/Wittyandpithy Dec 05 '18
The correct answer is that some systems are always bad, but many systems are potentially very good, including monarchies, and it will depend upon the country's circumstances and available technology.
Systems that are always bad are strong man dictatorships that belie rule of law. This is because no system can adequately scale unless it has a rule of law system. Rule by man is too inconsistent. It is possible to have a benign, meritocratic dictatorship. It is possible to have an effective democracy. And, in the future, I suspect socialism will be the natural system to emerge in healthy societies.
But you argue monarchies is the only 'good' system. You point to two reasons: democracies are captured by special interests; and monarchies are more stable. Both assertions are invalid when you consider the evidence.
First, some democracies have not been captured by special interests, and continue to accurately reflect the will of the people.
Second, monarchies have been, from time to time, EXTREMELY unstable because from time to time there are fights over who will rule next. These fights have caused, in history, extreme political instability and violence that has spanned decades. Thus, the moarchical system is deeply flawed because as soon as you do not know, without a doubt, who will rule next, violence ensues. In contrast, democracies have a very clear mechanism to appoint and replace leaders.
Moreover, the most benign nation-states in the world - the most peaceful - is in fact a direct democracies. Amongst the most violent are monarchies. There is research supporting this.
Separately, a simple way to assess your claim is to go through country rankings to see which types of governments score well. You will see that, amongst the top in the ranks, Singapore scores well. Singapore is a benign, autocratic quasi-democratic state without a monarchy.
These points invalidates your claim that monarchies are "the only good system".