Monarchies Vs Republics - Why Are Monarchies More Democratic?

the title is ridiculous but true lol

If you want to support more videos like this one, I have a patreon:

Also on twitter @ibxtoycat

[marcor]

One thing that might mess up all these researchs: if a country was doing poor and was a monarchy: It got overthrown and turned into a republic. But if a coutry was doing good and was a monarchy, it didn‘t get overthrown and turned into a republic.
If course there are always exeptions and this is just a small pice in the human history, it still shouldn‘t be ignored

[wordsmith]

Honestly the term "republic" doesn't really mean anything. Any term that lumps France and the DPRK together is pointless. And a constitutional monarchy like Canada is ridiculous to compare to Saudi Arabia's monarchy. It's not as if we're comparing differing forms of governance - just arbitrary terms that countries use either deceptively or aspirationally.

[johnson]

Back in 1920 the Danish King fired the government because he thought that it was too leftist (and he was allowed to do so), and when the Danish people heard about that, they marched up to his castle and started shouting for a republic.
The King ended up cancelling the firing of the government to avoid a revolution, and since then, the royal family has never stated anything political.
I think the fact that Kingdoms have an unbiased head of state is likely part of the reason why there are some left and they rank so high on democracy.

[rasmusn.e.m]

The lack of political revolutions tends to result in two things:

1. Monarchy staying in place
2. Stability staying in place

[Max-pkuc]

I would say that Monarchies seem to be doing better only because the most democratic countries are from Europe and it just happens to be that most monarchies that still exist are European or tied to a European country

[shyhistorian]

Title: 'Why are monarchies more democratic?"
Saudi Arabia:

[blumoogle]

I think it's confirmation bias: The countries which happened to be successful, stable, rich and long lasting with happy people have not had big sudden changes in government, and thus they are still monarchies. All the monarchies which were unstable fell apart so it's not so much that monarchies are automatically better, it's that countries which have a relatively good system of government for themselves - regardless of what that system is - doesn't see the need to go through big changes. The countries which have the longest periods of stability thus generally have the system closest to how they started out, and the long periods of stability is good for the people and the economy.

This doesn't just hold true for the form of government, even, but for a lot of legal and cultural principles: countries which are happier and wealthier tend to have well working common law systems and quirks of history baked into their structure all over the place that rely far more on precedent than coherent codified documents, as younger countries who started off with greater literacy rates do.

[qwertystania]

I think that this is a classic case of survivorship bias. Lots of countries once had a monarch, but only the stable countries have kept their monarchs. Unstable countries tend to overthrow their monarchs only to end up being ruled by people that are monarchs in all but name.

[sorashadow]

6:30 the Vatican can be seen as elected monarchy

[carlose]

Arguably, the United Arab Emirates is an elective monarchy. It's just that the electors are princes/emirs.

[Jedib]

Having a figurehead that isn’t associated with political ideologies is better for unity and allows for the actual lawmakers to be held accountable without leaving the country without a ruler.

[GrenadierTerritorial]

"Some cool countries, and Bolivia" had me dying bro

[leehallam]

I think you sort of got there, both being successful and having a surviving monarchy are a result of inherently stable countries, rather than a monarchy making a country richer. That said in a constitutional monarchy there are real advantages in terms of the head of state being non political compared to the different types of Republic. First many presidents are really just dictators, or have no more legitimacy than monarchs, indeed some presidencies pass through families, how many generations do we have to see before we realise North Korea is a monarchy. Even in democracies some ceremonial Presidents are elected by their politicians, and even when directly elected, they are beholden to their party for nominating them. How many of these people are significant world figures? Then we have those who run the country. These countries entirely lack a unifying figure like the King of Papua New Guinea.

[Luredreier]

2:14
Damned, so Denmark has slipped past us here in Norway when it comes to democracy?
We've been ahead for a long time good for them for beating us.

[gnoetv]

North Korea could be considered a monarchy because power goes from father to son, kind of the defining characteristic of a monarchy

[Glockas]

"There are no elective monarchies"
Vatican City: Am I a joke to you?

[parabolaaaaa]

nah the uk monarchy house’s name is windsor, it would be like the the windsor kingdom or something

[niklashakansson]

Couldn't be the reason behind this is that the monarchies peacefully become constitutional-monarchies which could leads to better democracy beacause they are not overthrown

[brunothedev]

The thing isn´t if there is a king or not, the real thing that blocks democracies are aristocrats, one good example is when the king of Denmark started granting rights to the Danish people, since it would weak the aristocracy

example 2:Famously there was a problem with British politics called "rotten boroughs", which was electoral boroughs with overly representation(search for more info), when the house of commons passed it, the house of lords(aristocrats) blocked the act, until the king intervened, and threatened to remove them from power and replace them

Edit:Added example and fixed spelling error

[SilvanaDil]

"The Democracy Index" is about as bogus as "The Happiness Index" and most of the rest of the difficult to quantify indices.