I can confirm I have not tested my theory against data, but I have enough knowledge of history to be comfortable observing the pattern I describe here. Do you have specific examples that contradict my theory? In particular, examples of (non-elective) monarchies that have consistently had high-quality leaders over several generations, or republics (especially republics that don’t use FPTP) that consistently have low-quality leaders would help debunk my theory.
Many monarchies survived very long (and longer then our modern Republics are around) with suggests that they manage to be coverned well enough to be politically stable over long periods of time.
If we look at the British or Danish queen both engage in international politics and have a higher approval rating then their respective elected leaders. If they are less competent then the elected leaders why is their approval rate so high?
Most nominal monarchies that are around today (in the post-American-Constitution era) are only still around because they became effectively republics (I know, the usual definition of ‘republic’ is a country that doesn’t have a monarch, but in this post I was, confusingly, and as I mentioned elsewhere, using an implicit definition of ‘republic’ as “indirect democracy”)
I think your post assumes to much about monarch and the leaders of republics without looking at any empirical data about them.
I can confirm I have not tested my theory against data, but I have enough knowledge of history to be comfortable observing the pattern I describe here. Do you have specific examples that contradict my theory? In particular, examples of (non-elective) monarchies that have consistently had high-quality leaders over several generations, or republics (especially republics that don’t use FPTP) that consistently have low-quality leaders would help debunk my theory.
Many monarchies survived very long (and longer then our modern Republics are around) with suggests that they manage to be coverned well enough to be politically stable over long periods of time.
If we look at the British or Danish queen both engage in international politics and have a higher approval rating then their respective elected leaders. If they are less competent then the elected leaders why is their approval rate so high?
Their subjects are taught to worship them.
They don’t do anything,so they don’t do anything wrong.
3. No one needs to run political attack ads against the queen, or otherwise lower her status, to beat her in an election.
International relations is not the main criterion on which elected officials’ approval ratings depend.
Most nominal monarchies that are around today (in the post-American-Constitution era) are only still around because they became effectively republics (I know, the usual definition of ‘republic’ is a country that doesn’t have a monarch, but in this post I was, confusingly, and as I mentioned elsewhere, using an implicit definition of ‘republic’ as “indirect democracy”)