What are the key differences between monarchy and democracy?

Answer 1

Monarchy is a government type where an area is ruled by one person, who may be elected or from a family of rulers. A democracy is a type of government where everyone is allowed to vote for their leader.

Answer 2

Democracy only works well in societies where there is a robust and large middle class and economic stability.

The term "monarchy" is a bit misleading because most if not all modern monarchies are actually constitutional monarchies, which is a kind of democracy (cf. Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, etc.).

In centuries past, a monarchy was a feudal hierarchy (Holy Roman Empire/Germany) or a hereditary Dictatorship (Russia, France). Monarchies of the feudal type function well in diverse countries where people are regionally of different ethnic groups and speak different languages and have different religions--but where there is no robust middle class or where economic stability is not a given; monarchies of the dictatorship type function best when there is otherwise a vacuum of power and leadership in the society and where economic and social conditions are not otherwise stable, so long as the monarch is able to enforce stability. If the monarch cannot enforce stability, the result is usually revolution of some kind (cf. France, Russia).

Answer 3

You can have both, the two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, most countries that still have a monarchy ARE democracies!!

In the Western world, those countries that retain a monarch as head of state (these being Britain, Spain, Holland, Belgium, Norway and Denmark) retain them purely as ceremonial figureheads. Whilst the king or queen may have some legislative duties to do with the opening of Parliament, the approving of a new Prime Minister, the reading of an annual speech to Parliament setting out the Government's future plans, etc. etc., these roles are really just formalities. REAL power lies with the Government and it's elected members- in theory, the monarch could obstruct the process of democratic government by, for example, refusing to confirm a new Prime Minister in office, although in practice this would only create a delay and could not affect the ultimate outcome, whilst at the same time doing a huge amount of damage to the credibility and popularity of the Royal House. Britain and other European nations are fully-fledged democracies, and the real power that their monarchy has is marginal. Such nations are known as Constitutional Monarchies, and their monarch is supposed to remain politically impartial, without favouring one party or the other.

Countries that are governed by a reigning monarch can either be Democratic Monarchies or Absolute Monarchies. In a Democratic Monarchy, the sovereign holds real and considerable power in most areas of Government, but works with a democratically elected administration to run the country. The monarch may not always agree with the policies or legislation of their Government, and has the final power of veto over decisions that they oppose very strongly ( a bit like the President of the USA), although in most cases, they do their best to excercise pragmatism and reach compromises with the government in order to retain their popularity. Jordan and Thailand are examples of Democratic Monarchies. An Absolute Monarchy is effectively a dictatorship, such as exists in Saudi Arabia, and up until recently in Nepal. Here, the power of the monarch is total, and his or her word is final. A Parliament of sorts usually exists, but it's members are at least half appointed by the sovereign, and the election of the remainder is carried out in so restricted a manner that it cannot be called true democracy (a bit like used to be done in the old Soviet Union). It is, in effect, a 'rubber-stamp' Parliament, that has to approve the decisions the monarch makes, and whose actual independent operations are very limited. England was an Absolute Monarchy up until the English Civil War, which began in 1642 and resulted in the overthrowal of the dictatorship of Charles I.

So given the above variations, it's very difficult to say that a monarchy cannot also be a democracy as well. For example, here in England, the democratic credentials of Queen Elizabeth have been very much greater than those of former Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair- both of whom were democratically elected!! You can get bad Absolute Monarchies that practice torture and human rights abuses, such as Saudi Arabia, but you can also get kind, benign Democratic Monarchs such as the late King Hussein of Jordan and King Bhumibol of Thailand, who seek to act in everybody's best interests and to accomodate their government's policies as much as possible. Such monarchs are greatly preferable to democratically-elected politicians who become tyrannical, such as Senator Joseph McCarthy of the USA, British PM Margaret Thatcher, and Adolf Hitler, who was elected democratically but who then set about abolishing the very system that had brought him to power.

Answer 4

A democracy is the rule of the people in a state while monarchy is rule by a monarch.