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”)
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”)