Which is better: dictatorship, republic, or monarchy?

Question

give reasons

Answer 1

Obviously some governments are better at some things than other governments, or there would be no reason to adopt any particular one over another. Each system you've suggested has the potential to excel in situations where the others flounder. So I'll try as address some of these as we go along.

It also bears mention that monarchies, dictatorships, and republics all have a huge variation in how they do what they do and which change their character significantly. Likewise, the specific people involved may make more of a difference than the system itself at time - it may be much better to be a serf in a highly benevolent monarchy than to be even a leader in a tyrannical and highly corrupt republic. So perhaps the best approach is to look at each system individually.

The only thing certain about a monarchy is that it has a head of state, and that this position is inherited along family lines. That is all. There are many constitutional monarchies where the power is shared between the head of state and many elected officials, and some governments are monarchies pretty much in name only. One great advantage a monarchy has over other systems is that you have a lifetime to get to know your leaders instead of a few months of sound bites. The royal family is worked out to the hundredth in line for the throne so gaps in power aren't too likely, though disputes over primacy can lead to infighting. Almost all monarchies are rich in tradition, which can be a benefit in itself. The biggest disadvantage is that leaders are chosen by genetics, so they may just as easily be an idiot as a genius. Historically, this tends to work itself out as weak leaders are manipulated by their advisors or replaced by usurpers.

A dictatorship is in some ways even less concrete. Generally a dictator is a person who wields supreme executive power over his country. Generally. You might call some monarchies a hereditary dictatorship (but nobody ever does). A dictator might share power with other people (Roman dictators were required to account for all their decisions to the senate). He might even have been elected to his post. There isn't so much a risk of infighting in a dictatorship, though it is harder to gain the legitimacy that is more inherent with a monarchy. Dictators tend to be more up on the times and more competent because of the very means they used to secure their power in the first place.

Now, depending on the power sharing in either a monarchy or a dictatorship, other characteristics may accrue as well. Where only one person is making all the major decisions they have the ability to react quickly to change and to do things that are very unpopular but need to be done nonetheless. This can both be really good if the power is wielded well and in the people's interests, and really bad if the power is wielded ineptly or against their interests.

An elected dictatorship might be also thought of as a republic with just an unusually long term of office. Some people actually do define a republic as 'anything that's not a monarchy', so perhaps the comparison is not entirely inappropriate. The main feature of most republics, however, is that people vote for things they want. Maybe they vote on laws, or maybe for representatives, depending on the republic. Likewise, maybe everyone gets to vote or maybe not. I know of no republic that extends a vote to literally everyone - non-citizens are almost always disenfranchised and often many citizens as well (America disenfranchises around a quarter of their citizens). There is also a presumption that republics also have sharply limited power, in that the government can't do ANYTHING, like some monarchies and dictatorships. But I suspect that this line would be difficult to draw, particularly in some states where heavy demagoguery is present. This, too, is one of the biggest weaknesses of a republic: most of the things it does must be popular, or they won't happen, no matter how necessary they may be. This kind of government thus encourages deception from politicians way more than the other types because of this dependence on popularity. And the constantly shifting officials can make the government very up-to-the-second but also downright erratic so all the truths of yesterday may be out the window when a new party blows into office. Because so many people are involved in decisions, they are usually slow to come and sometimes unresolved indefinitely.

Which one you find best overall is going to depend greatly on your view of humanity. If you think power corrupts and those that are allowed to vote generally make good decisions, then you're going to like the republic. If you think that people as a whole cannot be trusted to act in the greater good but one carefully chosen individual might, then a dictatorship is for you. On the other hand, if you're a big fan of nature over nurture, then you may want to select the most ideal family of rulers and start up a monarchy. I'll let you decide which group you fall in for yourself.

Answer 2

Easier to answer : which is worst. That's dictatorship.
Between a constitutional monarchy and a republic, I personally like the constitutional monarchy. Both systems are equally democratic, but I believe the constitutional monarchy works better because in the monarchy (a reigning monarchy, not a governing one) you have a neutral arbiter between different political parties.
If the monarchy were a decision-making factor, then I would be forced to agree with the person who doesn't think it is as democratic as a republic.
Basically, we Canadians have learned to live with our system, and have been able to criticize the Republican system from the outside. Americans and Frenchmen have become accustomed to their respective republics, and can probably see the holes in our constitutional monarchy.
In any case, a democracy is only as good as the people we elect. My father always used to say we have the government we deserve.

Answer 3

Dictatorship is bad because it is one person in control of an entire country. They dictate to us what we can and cannot do.

A republic is various branches controlling certain parts of the government. No one part has more power than the other one.

A monarchy is basically a dictatorship with another name.

Looking at all of that, I guess a republic is the best of the three. However, if true communism could work, that is the best government. But true communism will never work because a dictator will always take over.

Answer 4

Well look at canada, we started as a monarchy, now we are independant of england 100% since 1982. Thats when an agreement was signed to state how our constitution can be changed, technically the queen hasn't had a say since 1939 " The agreement of westminster" But we are a democratic country like america just a different political syytem, funny our PM has more power than your Pres. but your pres sits four years per term ours can range from 6months to five years, no longer. And our PM is chosen by the party, and then the people elect party members. At least you guys get to pick you president. I still say if America wants to be 100 percent demcratic get rid of electrial districts by points and do it as one person one vote. then chad things most likely wont happen.
each riding is first past the post one with most votes wins. I like it socialists don't for they have never controlled the country of CANADA if they did I'd ask for a green card right away and run lol.

Answer 5

dictatorships and monarchies are best when YOU are the dictator or monarch. I am neither so I'm going with representative republic. that system produced the greatest society in the history of mankind. Ours.

Answer 6

After the last 6 years of a dictator I for one am ready to get back to being a republic.

Answer 7

A democracy! Who wants 2 more years of Dubbya's dictatorship? Not me! Vote in a democratic congressional majority and get him out!

Answer 8

Republic, since all decisions have to go through the council. A Dictator or monarch, say how everything is going to be.

Answer 9

Republic, you have some control over who is in power.

Answer 10

Republic because absolute power corrupts absolutley.