HomeAnswerNotificationsCustomize Feeds
HOMEQUESTION
Is democracy really better than monarchy?
$0.00
5 ANSWERS

Yes off course democracy is a much better system. 

Kings or queens don't deserve their power, they got it by inheritance. Why should someone be given power over other people just because they are born in the right family? It doesn't make sense at all when you think about it. The only reason there are still monarchies today is because they gave up most of their power. Now they only do ceremonial work but don't have much jurisdictions to make important decisions. Most monarchies are a constitutional monarchy. Tis way they can keep living their luxurious lifestyles with tax payers money without the people protesting. Because "the peasants" only protest when situations have become to worse to be longer bearable. Besides that most people don't think much about such things, they just live their simple lives. 

$3.45
Reply
1 Comment

I would have to say definitely yes comma the main reason why democracy was touted to be better than monarchy is because monarchy in the long run can bring about anarchy the 21st century era actually permits people to be able to have a say or have a right to choose those who govern them and in a monarchy system of government the write an opinion of people are not respected this is because monarchy is hereditary which means that a corrupt lineage of people can actually get to room for up to 300 years building wealth and affluence for only their family and allowing people to suffer in the long run.

Democracy is people's government it's actually respect people's opinion and actually values the fact that power lies mainly with the people that is before a person can be a ruler it must have been the majority choice of the electorate in a sovereign state , so as well democracy supports the rule of law, the use of constitution and also the protection of human rights of citizens and people that's why democracy is better than monarchy.

It is considered that people who are monarchs I actually totalitarian in nature because they edited power definitely means they cannot lose it which gives them chance is to actually abuse the power without being challenged or questions example of such monarch are the sultan of sokoto in north eastern Nigeria it was actually popular in the pre-colonial era where people were total subjects not having the will to make their own choices when it comes to matters pertaining to the government, the system was considered vague in nature and anti human too.

So systems of government like socialism communism capitalism and socialism including monarchy all gave way for democracy to replace and it actually did it very well so in all ramification democracy actually is better than monarchy

$1.68
Reply

I don't care for any of them. Here is the reason :

Popular government is the tyranny of lion's share, it remunerates the individuals who take a stab at the power.

Obviously, individuals can not generally pick the correct alternative.

Government officials are controlling individuals with their populist thoughts. They will likely pick up however much power as could reasonably be expected. For instance :

Dominant part of government officials are putting forth alleged "free" stuff to the general population. That way, they get cast a ballot which prompts control. In any case, very few individuals realize that NOTHING CAN BE FREE. When they offer "free" human services, they mean taking citizens cash and spending it on social insurance.

Free instruction does not exists. Instructors are getting paid by the citizens, yet interestingly, it isn't deliberate.

Much of the time, government is a fiasco. Exclusive/lady managing over entire country. In the event that the lord is an awful individual, entire country will live in a calamity until this man/lady lives and rules. In any case, if the leader of a nation doesn't make progress toward influence and is knowledgeable in financial aspects, nation will get rich soon. Since he will recognize what to do and nobody can remain against him/her.

With the end goal to maintain a strategic distance from inconveniences of government/majority rule government you require the constitution to secure you. On the off chance that you give the administration constrained rights, where government's solitary objective is to secure individual(includes private property), at that point doesn't make a difference will's identity the president or head administrator, they simply can not tread on your rights. All things considered, human has a chance to flourish by his/her diligent work. The administration, won't spend as much as it does of course, it will assess you less(exact number relies upon a nation). Duty cash will spent for the police/armed force and when the charges are low, more cash remains in private part and organizations continue developing, which prompts more open occupations and greater rivalry.

In any case, this model can not be connected quickly to each nation, some of them have to get more extravagant, so natives will have a chance to work and get what they merit.

No tyrant/ruler/President is required in 21st century. Individual simply needs an open door given by the constitution to buckle down.

$0.87
Reply

Yes, because democracy is more decentralized than monarchy. It is dangerous to put power into the hands of few because we humans are rather stupid and of questionable moral integrity. We are vulnerable to coercion and tempted by bribery. Checks and balances are vital, much more important than rule by popular vote.

$0.57
Reply

I have no doubt that democracy is the best known form of organization and political functioning of a society, that which is called government. Democracy, although it presents flaws in its specific concretion in the countries that have it as a form of government, being a system that is based on the right and exercise of the participation of all citizens, whether through electoral processes, consultations or critical action through political and social organizations or the media, offers the possibility of majority decisions, as well as respect for minorities, as well as reorientation and perfectibility. Not so the monarchy, which already implies the dominion of a single ruler ("monarch"), generally not elected, but imposed by dynasty or inheritance. Democracy is the possibility of shared social construction based on duties and rights regulated by laws, and that is the foundation of a free, rational and just society.

$0.00
Reply