The previous threads on this topic, even though it had excellent comments & info, degenerated into a free-for-all. Maybe 3rd time lucky. This time around, let's all try to keep personal attacks out of the thread.

As seen from the following link, politicians come & go but one thing has remained constant. Can the same be said for republics?

On Wed 9th Sept 2015 HM Queen Elizabeth II becomes the longest serving British Monarch

The previous threads on this topic, even though it had excellent comments & info, degenerated into a free-for-all. Maybe 3rd time lucky. This time around, let's all try to keep personal attacks out of the thread.

As seen from the following link, politicians come & go but one thing has remained constant. Can the same be said for republics?

On Wed 9th Sept 2015 HM Queen Elizabeth II becomes the longest serving British Monarch

Depending on what country and moment of history you look you'll find that Monarchs come and go as well. All that remains is the institution of the Monarchy, but the Republic has its own institutions and for a good number of countries those institutions have proven to be very reliable and stable.

Depending on what country and moment of history you look you'll find that Monarchs come and go as well. All that remains is the institution of the Monarchy, but the Republic has its own institutions and for a good number of countries those institutions have proven to be very reliable and stable.

The same can also be said of monarchies.

Monarchy is superior if I am the King!
All systems of government are flawed otherwise.

---

looking around these days at the mess most countries are in today, I am almost to the conclusion that the best form of government might just be a Benevolent Dictatorship. Singapore under Lee Kwan Yew might be the best example even though they are modeled after the British parliamentary system.

Now where can we find such a benevolent dictator.

looking around these days at the mess most countries are in today, I am almost to the conclusion that the best form of government might just be a Benevolent Dictatorship. Singapore under Lee Kwan Yew might be the best example even though they are modeled after the British parliamentary system.

Now where can we find such a benevolent dictator.

Well, the problem is that a benevolent dictatorship is not very stable in the long term. First of all you need the right person to be a dictator, or else it just becomes a dictatorship. Generally, the people that can rightly be described as benevolent dictator are few and far between. So every time a dictator quits or dies, and a new dictator takes his or her place, the odds are that the new dictator won't be as benevolent as his predecessor. Indeed, there is a good chance that the new dictator is just an ordinary tyrant. And such a person is likely to undo all the progress made by his predecessor. So, no long term gains then.

Another problem with dictatorships in general is that they are not nearly as efficient as people like to think. A dictator only really has time for one thing and that is to make sure he remains in power. But because he is a dictator, he has to fear for his position 24/7 (quick side note, this fear often turns potentially benevolent dictators into monsters. Assad was generally seen as 'enlightened' before the Syrian civil war, and who knows what he would have done if his people hadn't rebelled). So what generally happens is that dictators surround themselves with idiots and people who they have assured loyalty from (so friends and family). And in order to control them and keep them happy, those people get all the nice jobs. Usually though, those people are wholly incompetent to run such high level government positions, and generally they are also the people who can't keep their hands out of the cookie jar. So, corruption will be rampant. Furthermore, since dictators are in constant fear for their lives and their position, they are naturally suspicious of everyone who is ambitious and competent. Those are often seen as a threat to the position of the established regime, which means those people either never get promoted upwards, or they disappear in some unmarked grave.

In any case, what this results in on the long term is that idiots and sycophants control the top layers of society, while everyone who is intelligent and capable remains stuck at the bottom, where their talents are utterly wasted.

So, are dictatorships efficient? No, not really. Yes, in a time of crisis and war they can make quick decisions. But because they are surrounded by idiots, they are unlikely to actually be able to competently deal with a crisis.

Now where can we find such a benevolent dictator.

I shall update my CV forthwith, fifthwith even :-)

As everybody knows I am an avid supporter of our Monarchy.

The two don't go very well together :-)

Monarchy is superior if I am the King!

All systems of government are flawed otherwise.

---

I shall update my CV forthwith, fifthwith even :-)

As everybody knows I am an avid supporter of our Monarchy.

The two don't go very well together :-)

You wouldn't even pass the first sift for an interview :-))))

I was referring to a dictatorship which does not sit well with a monarchy. A dictator wants it all. For you to see it as a personal dig says much.

looking around these days at the mess most countries are in today, I am almost to the conclusion that the best form of government might just be a Benevolent Dictatorship. Singapore under Lee Kwan Yew might be the best example even though they are modeled after the British parliamentary system.

Now where can we find such a benevolent dictator.

Well, the problem is that a benevolent dictatorship is not very stable in the long term. First of all you need the right person to be a dictator, or else it just becomes a dictatorship. Generally, the people that can rightly be described as benevolent dictator are few and far between. So every time a dictator quits or dies, and a new dictator takes his or her place, the odds are that the new dictator won't be as benevolent as his predecessor. Indeed, there is a good chance that the new dictator is just an ordinary tyrant. And such a person is likely to undo all the progress made by his predecessor. So, no long term gains then.

Another problem with dictatorships in general is that they are not nearly as efficient as people like to think. A dictator only really has time for one thing and that is to make sure he remains in power. But because he is a dictator, he has to fear for his position 24/7 (quick side note, this fear often turns potentially benevolent dictators into monsters. Assad was generally seen as 'enlightened' before the Syrian civil war, and who knows what he would have done if his people hadn't rebelled). So what generally happens is that dictators surround themselves with idiots and people who they have assured loyalty from (so friends and family). And in order to control them and keep them happy, those people get all the nice jobs. Usually though, those people are wholly incompetent to run such high level government positions, and generally they are also the people who can't keep their hands out of the cookie jar. So, corruption will be rampant. Furthermore, since dictators are in constant fear for their lives and their position, they are naturally suspicious of everyone who is ambitious and competent. Those are often seen as a threat to the position of the established regime, which means those people either never get promoted upwards, or they disappear in some unmarked grave.

In any case, what this results in on the long term is that idiots and sycophants control the top layers of society, while everyone who is intelligent and capable remains stuck at the bottom, where their talents are utterly wasted.

So, are dictatorships efficient? No, not really. Yes, in a time of crisis and war they can make quick decisions. But because they are surrounded by idiots, they are unlikely to actually be able to competently deal with a crisis.

Ah, but that is the thing... Human nature being what it is, NO form of government is stable over the long term.

Dictatorship. Let us look at Rome. Rome was initially ruled by a monarch. In 509 BCE, the last king was overthrown and replaced by a republic.

In times of emergency, the normal executive power structure (2 consuls) was replaced by 1 dictator (for a set period ONLY, after which the dictator was supposed to resign -- and they usually did -- and return Rome to its 'normal' rule).

There was a period of instability in the Roman Republic caused by a conflict in the Senate between the 'Optimates' (Conservative Patricians) and the 'Populares' (Populist, almost Progressive ('Bread and Circuses') Patricians). A number of civil wars broke out.

There is an awful lot of history here, but it wound up with Gaius Julius Caesar being proclaimed 'dictator perpetuo' in Feb. 44 BCE about 1 month before his assassination on March 15th, 44 BCE (beware the ides of March!). When the dust settled after even more civil wars, Rome was essentially a dictatorial empire which lasted until its collapse (in the west) in (depending on who you believe) 476 CE or 480 CE.

As Clyde is fond of pointing out (and correctly so) History has a way of repeating itself -- not so much in exact events, but in larger themes.

Great Powers are formed, they expand, they peak, they decline, and they collapse.

Rome, during this process, went from Monarchy (formation), to Republic (expansion), to Dictatorship (late expansion, peak, decline, and collapse).

In the beginning and the end, they are almost always ruled by some sort of autocrat.

Benevolent dictator... yeah right... Someone has been reading Hobbes' Leviathan...

Мишель, you are right in regards to the problems with a benevolent dictatorship. But, what you fail to see is that much of the same problems are faced by any OTHER form of government. It not so much of a failing in a form of government using a 'benevolent dictator'... It is a failing in... well... human nature.

Monarchy vs. Republic... it does not really matter in the grand scheme of things. The British Empire is WELL into its decline, and its 'child empire' the USA is not that far behind it. Whatever the People in the UK wish for now... but it won't change the eventual outcome in the slightest.

@ William Rothamel: You mentioned Lee Kwan Yew is a famous example of a Benevolent Dictatorship. True. But you left one out thats a bit closer to home...

President (for life, as it were) Franklin Delano Roosevelt of the USA. Yes, the USA. We have been teetering on the edge of dictatorship ever since.

@ Everyone:

Remember the political conflict in Rome that led to the end of the Republic and the establishment of a centuries long string of Dictators?

The Optimates vs. the Populares? Conservative elites vs. Populist elites? Sound familiar? It should. It is being repeated in the USA, the UK, and many other nations.

Republicans vs. Democrats...
Tories vs. Labour...

Next time Clyde says that history repeats itself, you all might wanna pay attention...

Since William started this sub-topic with his mention of Benevolent Dictatorship (a concept that has been around since at least Aristotle, and eloquently written down by Hobbes in Leviathan...

Human nature is what it is. There is a reason why Hobbes correctly stated that a state of nature was 'a war of all against all'. Yes, we can make up all sorts of lofty sounding forms of Government...

Federal Republic...
Constitutional Monarchy...
etc.
etc.
etc....

It doesn't matter. They might work for a time...

But, sooner or later, human nature WILL fark 'em up.

The previous threads on this topic, even though it had excellent comments & info, degenerated into a free-for-all. Maybe 3rd time lucky. This time around, let's all try to keep personal attacks out of the thread.

As seen from the following link, politicians come & go but one thing has remained constant. Can the same be said for republics?

On Wed 9th Sept 2015 HM Queen Elizabeth II becomes the longest serving British Monarch

Yes, San Marino has been a republic for longer than Britain has had a monarch (take your pick of dates for that, Charles II 1660 or William I 1066, San Marino has been a republic since 301).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

The previous threads on this topic, even though it had excellent comments & info, degenerated into a free-for-all. Maybe 3rd time lucky. This time around, let's all try to keep personal attacks out of the thread.

As seen from the following link, politicians come & go but one thing has remained constant. Can the same be said for republics?

On Wed 9th Sept 2015 HM Queen Elizabeth II becomes the longest serving British Monarch

Yes, San Marino has been a republic for longer than Britain has had a monarch (take your pick of dates for that, Charles II 1660 or William I 1066, San Marino has been a republic since 301).

Which has to depend on another nation for its defence.

National defence is, by arrangement, the responsibility of Italy's armed forces.

Ah, but that is the thing... Human nature being what it is, NO form of government is stable over the long term.

Sort of true, but even then, the difference in stability between a dictatorship and a democracy is telling. The most stable dictatorships last for a few decades, the most stable democracy has already lasted for several centuries.

As Clyde is fond of pointing out (and correctly so) History has a way of repeating itself -- not so much in exact events, but in larger themes.

Great Powers are formed, they expand, they peak, they decline, and they collapse.

Aside from the general idea that powers rise and fall, history isn't nearly as cyclical as some people like to think.

Also, its worth noting that no power has ever truly 'collapsed' all on its own. The Roman empire didn't collapse, it changed and actually still exists today in the form of the Roman Catholic church. Other empires have 'fallen' but never to the point where they ceased to exist. Even the idea of 'falling' is a little misleading. Most simply got surpassed by someone else. The only empires that really collapsed are the ones that were wiped out by forces outside of their control. The empires of South America didn't so much as collapse as they were simply obliterated. Thats not really the fault of their government though, its just that back then the people with the biggest guns tended to win all the arguments.

Мишель, you are right in regards to the problems with a benevolent dictatorship. But, what you fail to see is that much of the same problems are faced by any OTHER form of government. It not so much of a failing in a form of government using a 'benevolent dictator'... It is a failing in... well... human nature.

No, that is patently untrue. The problem with a dictatorship is that all power is vested into one person, the dictator. In the end, his word is law. Is that the case in a democratic republic or a constitutional monarchy? No, there are checks and balances and power is divided over several institutions and offices. Human weakness has been regulated out of the equation, at least for now.

Can human nature screw that up? Well yeah, its all man made and everything made by man can be undone. But is it easy to undo such a thing? In practice, no not really, it would require some exceptional circumstances to destabilize the situation to such a degree that all checks and balances are removed and one person gets total control over everything.

So the point of your post was?

To get a knee jerk reaction off the internet.

Sort of true, but even then, the difference in stability between a dictatorship and a democracy is telling. The most stable dictatorships last for a few decades, the most stable democracy has already lasted for several centuries.

Untrue. My example. Rome. The Roman empire lasted as a dictatorship (political and military) for quite some time. Depending on the particular historian you listen to, it began either with Julius Caesar's appointment as perpetual dictator in 44BCE one month before his assassination, or 27BCE (Octavius's assumption of the title 'Augustus'). It split up into East and West in 395CE. But just considering the West, it fell in 476CE (or 480CE, again depending on the historian you listen to). A bit over 500 years? That is a heck of a long time, far longer than many republics have lasted. The Eastern Roman Empire lasted close to 1000 years longer, falling in 1453CE.

As Clyde is fond of pointing out (and correctly so) History has a way of repeating itself -- not so much in exact events, but in larger themes.

Great Powers are formed, they expand, they peak, they decline, and they collapse.

Aside from the general idea that powers rise and fall, history isn't nearly as cyclical as some people like to think.

Also, its worth noting that no power has ever truly 'collapsed' all on its own. The Roman empire didn't collapse, it changed and actually still exists today in the form of the Roman Catholic church. Other empires have 'fallen' but never to the point where they ceased to exist. Even the idea of 'falling' is a little misleading. Most simply got surpassed by someone else. The only empires that really collapsed are the ones that were wiped out by forces outside of their control. The empires of South America didn't so much as collapse as they were simply obliterated. Thats not really the fault of their government though, its just that back then the people with the biggest guns tended to win all the arguments.

Oh the Western Roman Empire fell, all right. It did not morph into the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church stepped in and filled the power vacuum.

The reasons why it fell are legion (pun intended). :P
Seriously, there are a great many reasons why it fell. Cultural, economic, technological, environmental, and yes... military.

But fall it did. It ceased to be.

In 476CE Romulus Augustus was deposed as Roman Emperor by Odoacer, a Germanic (Skirii). Julius Nepos (appointed by Leo I (Eastern Roman Emperor) as Western Roman Emperor in 474) was pushed out of Rome by Romulus Augustus' father, and really only ruled Dalmatia after that. He was assassinated by his own military in 480CE. Hence, the two different dates (476CE and 480CE).

Regardless, Odoacer took the title 'King of Italy', and the Western Roman Empire was GONE.

Мишель, you are right in regards to the problems with a benevolent dictatorship. But, what you fail to see is that much of the same problems are faced by any OTHER form of government. It not so much of a failing in a form of government using a 'benevolent dictator'... It is a failing in... well... human nature.

No, that is patently untrue. The problem with a dictatorship is that all power is vested into one person, the dictator. In the end, his word is law. Is that the case in a democratic republic or a constitutional monarchy? No, there are checks and balances and power is divided over several institutions and offices. Human weakness has been regulated out of the equation, at least for now.

Can human nature screw that up? Well yeah, its all man made and everything made by man can be undone. But is it easy to undo such a thing? In practice, no not really, it would require some exceptional circumstances to destabilize the situation to such a degree that all checks and balances are removed and one person gets total control over everything.

First you disagree with me, then you agree with me. OK.

Yes, I agree with you that the institutions and offices of a 'democratic republic/constitutional monarchy' do tend to postpone the inevitable. But they are NOT a 100% defense from it.

Now then, I am NOT trying to Godwin the thread, but it does provide the perfect example.

Prior to the end of WWI, Germany was under the rule of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Kaiser... Caesar... Ok...
After being on the losing side in WWI, Germany reorganized into a Federal Republic. All well and good, right? The Weimar Republic.

Well, to make a long story short...

In 1933, a popular politician got made Chancellor by President Hindenburg on Jan. 30, 1933. On Feb. 27, 1933, there was a fire at the Reichstag. President Hindenburg issued the Reichstag Fire Decree, declaring a state of emergency. The German Constitution was out the window. Hitler took total control of the German Government, with himself as dictator.

I don't care what country you are in. If it is not now a dictatorship, it is only an 'oh crap!' or two away from being one.

Yes, democratic institutions can help stave off autocracy. But, ANY system can be gamed by those wishing to take... control of things for themselves. Please don't delude yourself that "it can't happen here". Yes, it can, and it is a certainty that yes, it will... unless, of course, your 'here' falls to an outside enemy first.

Untrue. My example. Rome. The Roman empire lasted as a dictatorship (political and military) for quite some time. Depending on the particular historian you listen to, it began either with Julius Caesar's appointment as perpetual dictator in 44BCE one month before his assassination, or 27BCE (Octavius's assumption of the title 'Augustus'). It split up into East and West in 395CE. But just considering the West, it fell in 476CE (or 480CE, again depending on the historian you listen to). A bit over 500 years? That is a heck of a long time, far longer than many republics have lasted. The Eastern Roman Empire lasted close to 1000 years longer, falling in 1453CE.

Hmm, well a few notes on that. First of all, the Emperors of Rome functioned much more as Monarchs, given that the position was hereditary. Second, the dictatorships of Rome were anything but stable. The first few did okay, but after that you quickly see the periods of government get shorter, the chaos between different emperors gets bigger, etc. Yes, the system of dictatorship remained in place, but it wasn't a system where one dictator neatly followed the next, unlike for example in a functioning democracy, where one government steps down after its mandate its over, elections happen and the new government takes the place of the previous one.

In that sense Rome's dictatorships only lasted a few years, its just that it was followed by more dictatorships.

Oh the Western Roman Empire fell, all right. It did not morph into the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church stepped in and filled the power vacuum.

No, not really. The Catholic church is build on the old Roman Empire's bureaucracy. The old Roman Empire's state institutions morphed into what is now the Catholic church.

You have to remember that at some point the Roman emperors abbandoned their old faith and replaced it with Christianity. The emperors also became pope's and they married Christianity with their state institutions. So while Rome and the Roman empire as a secular political entity got destroyed, the church survived and spread.

First you disagree with me, then you agree with me. OK.

No, you said that dictatorships face the same problem as constitutional republics, which is human nature. I disagree, in a constitutional republic human nature is regulated out of the equation. Checks and balances ensure that. The problem is therefor not inherent in the system of government.

Is it possible to get rid of the checks and balances? Sure, but then you are essentially changing the form government. The problem therefor lies not with the system of government.

Prior to the end of WWI, Germany was under the rule of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Kaiser... Caesar... Ok...
After being on the losing side in WWI, Germany reorganized into a Federal Republic. All well and good, right? The Weimar Republic.

Well, to make a long story short...

In 1933, a popular politician got made Chancellor by President Hindenburg on Jan. 30, 1933. On Feb. 27, 1933, there was a fire at the Reichstag. President Hindenburg issued the Reichstag Fire Decree, declaring a state of emergency. The German Constitution was out the window. Hitler took total control of the German Government, with himself as dictator.

A few notes on that.

First, the Weimar Republic was a very weak constitutional republic. They had no experience with democracy or the idea of a constitutional republic. As a result, the checks and balances that should have been in place didn't work properly. The state institutions that should have functioned as a guardian of the republic weren't strong enough to do so. And on top of that, the government was filled with types that while they were technically not Nazis, they disliked democracy just as much. They were in no hurry to strengthen the checks and balances and government institutions to ensure that the Weimar Republic would be able to resist a little shock.

And then second they were almost immediately plunged into serious crisis. First the war repayments, then the massive inflation, and immediately following that the economic crash. Thats three major crisis in 10 years with a Republic thats new and inexperienced and technically not ready yet.

I don't care what country you are in. If it is not now a dictatorship, it is only an 'oh crap!' or two away from being one.

I agree that we are all a few bad days away from Fascism, but do keep in mind those days need to be more than just bad. We are talking total systemic failure here. Crisis that the government can't fix.

Yes, democratic institutions can help stave off autocracy. But, ANY system can be gamed by those wishing to take... control of things for themselves. Please don't delude yourself that "it can't happen here". Yes, it can, and it is a certainty that yes, it will... unless, of course, your 'here' falls to an outside enemy first.

It can only be gamed under the right circumstances, and those circumstances thankfully don't happen that often.

Me, I'll take the USA's form of government. As bad as it can be, it's still a whole lot better than no government.

Countries with no government don't stay countries for very long. Their neighbors won't tolerate the anarchy.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

So the point of your post was?

To get a knee jerk reaction off the internet.

My earlier post was intended to answer the question that was asked, though the reaction of some may have been expected.

In the question that was asked in the OP I did not see a requirement for either a Monarchy or a Republic to provide its own national defense, nor details to show whether one form of government was better or worse than the other (or the criteria to base a better/worse comparison). The question was "As seen from the following link, politicians come & go but one thing has remained constant. Can the same be said for republics?", and, in terms of constancy, the republic of San Marino beats the British monarchy.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

63 years on the throne - but the Queen does not celebrate
She is inaugurating a new railway in Scotland instead. Elizabeth II becomes today the monarch who ruled the longest in the UK.

The Queen's Russian Connections
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/multimedia/photogalleries/the-queens-russian-connections/5864.html

Many of Crown Princess Victoria's royal family in Europe descended from Queen Victoria of England (1819-1901). This makes, for example, Crown Princess Victoria a kinship related in the fifth generation with England's Crown Prince Charles (born 1948).

God save the Queen!

---