A form of government wherein power and sovereignty is given to one person or several individuals is known as monarchy. Duration of the reign remains until the time of death or if the monarch in position abdicates or gives up the throne, as in the case of Queen Elizabeth II who became the Queen when her uncle abdicated his throne to marry a non-royalty American actress.
Monarchies have different forms, depending on the process power is handed down to the successor or successors, with the most common type being constitutional monarchy.
Different Forms of Monarchy
This is a form of monarchy with two individuals share the position of heads of state and which has its origins from 5th century B.C.
This form of government is usually one of oppression and aggression and also originated during 5th century B.C.
Said to have started during 16th century A.D., this monarchial form of government is one which gives absolute power to the monarch over the people.
With a period of origin from 13th century A.D., a monarch rules over a sovereignty through an election.
This monarchy is a type of government ruled by an Arab said to have a period of origin from 6th century A.D.
In this monarchial form of government, the Sovereign is the Head of State but legislation is made and executed by an Elective Parliament.
A monarchial form of government has supporters and critics who express opposite views regarding its significance and effect on the nation it rules over. Here are some of the pros and cons of monarchy.
List of Monarchy Pros
1. It does not incur election expenses.
One of the points raised by supporters is that there is no need for an election in this type of government, except from an elective monarchy wherein a successor is elected by a body and will hold the position for life. Because of this, the government and taxpayers’ money need not be spent for campaigns and other expenses for election. Since succession is based on different methods other than electing new leaders, there are no election costs to prepare for.
2. Succession is smooth sailing.
Advocates for monarchy claim that with this form of government, sovereignty is passed on to a successor who is a family member or an elected monarch who will stay in the position until death or abdication. This method of turnover of power is, more often than not, more peaceful and less complicated, according to those who are in favor of this form of government.
3. There is balance in governance.
Monarchy supporters maintain that with monarchial rule, as in the case of a constitutional monarchy, there is limited power given to the head of state. He or she remains to be a figurehead, someone who symbolizes his or her sovereignty and policies and laws come from a legislative body.
4. Monarchs are suited to rule and have the qualities to run a nation.
Since successors are usually from the same dynasty or bloodline, the order of succession is already determined and this gives enough time for the next monarch to be given the education, experience and knowledge to take over in the future. Moreover, future Kings or Queens start at a very young age and are honed to be rulers since birth. That said, they are expected to act as royalties and trained emotionally, physically and mentally to fulfill their duties.
5. Monarchies usually are revered by the people under their power.
With the long history passed on to the reigning monarch, people usually have the respect for their Queen or King. The Head of State, along with the family, is respected by most people of their country, which is a great way to have unity in the nation.
6. There is less corruption.
Succession in a monarchy happens upon death of the one in power or if he or she opts to leave the throne. Because of this, duration of tenure can last for a very long time, which gives the reigning monarch no reason to be corrupt. This is also one of the benefits supporters prefer with a monarchial form of government.
List of Monarchy Cons
1. There is only one person, family or body in control of a country.
Critics of monarchies argue that this type of government only gives control of the whole nation under selected individuals, leaving the people voice, whatsoever. The public is not given the freedom to meddle with making and implementing laws. They are concerned that if the monarch is selfish and self-gratifying, this is not good for the people and yet they cannot do anything.
2. Monarchies have expensive lifestyles.
Some opponents are complaining that the monarchs are provided with all the luxuries, including upkeep of their royal residences, which come from the Sovereign Grant, as in the case of the Royal family of the U.K., is the public’s money. This is not supported by some taxpayers, despite announcements that the Queen’s expenditure is not as lavish as it appears to be.
3. If a monarch is oppressive, nothing can be done about it.
With the tenure of a monarch only ending with death or abdication, he or she will stay in power of for decades. If the monarch is a bad person, the people have no way to end his or her wrong doings unlike in a democratic form of government wherein people can choose who they want to rule their countries.
4. Not all members in order of succession are competent.
Another argument raised by opponents is the fact that in hereditary monarchies or constitutional monarchies, there is an order of succession and whoever is in line will be the next ruler regardless if he or she has the qualities of a future head of state. They added that ruling over a nation should not be handed down to a person simply because he or she is born to it.
The debate on the relevance of a monarchy will remain a contentious issue between proponents and opponents. This form of government works in some but not all nations. However, for opponents, it will take a long time for them to achieve what they want because changing a type of governance is not a simple thing to do.