Fascism/communism and the rise of the State over the individual is a regression
Monarchy inevitably must lead to democracy -- while it is better than a series of dictators or an oligocracy or feudalism, it is only a half-way house, providing the "stability" that leads to the growth of the middle-class and thereby to democracy
It's very disingenuous of you, Alex to excerpt Annalex's post
In the history of the world you see a movement in which people band together as tribes, clans, then bigger clans, then under a king.
The king provides the initial "stability" and this leads to the rise of a nobility (and here I disagree with annalex's first n then m), then this percolates to the merchants, then finally to the farmers and "peasants".
When this has occured then the people are mature and demand their rights
I give you as an example, Bahrain: the current king and more especially, his father, was an enlightened ruler who educated his people and built up the economy.
yet, once the economy has progressed and people are now educated, then monarchy must relinquish power or be thrown out.
The British were lucky that they threw out their kings first, but then welcomed them back and also that they invited Dutch and then hanoverian monarchs who had no ties to England and finally Queen Victoria who lived the life of a reclusive widow and left the development of democracy to its own rights
If the English had not had this fortuitous things happening, they would have had monarchy overthrown like France or Germany or Russia
The Scandanavian monarchs are also a case in point -- they learned to give up control of running govt and so perpetuate their "rule"
An absolutionist state has no meaning in an educated country. A constitutional, figurehead monarchy may work in a state where the reins of power are in the hands of the premier (the UK, Spain etc.) as it provides some stability compared to an elected duocracy (where Premier and President both have comparable power) -- case in point, the US President is more comparable to an elected monarch in terms of sweeping powers than to a President like in France or even Russia. This works out good (along with the checks and balances).
The US system of checks and balances, while not perfect is the best known form of governing a large country
Thank you for the support, but the article convicningly argues that it is precisely the monarchy that provides checks and balances.
A nonelected part of government contributes to the separation of powers. By retaining certain constitutional powers or denying them to others, it can be a safeguard against abuses.5 This is perhaps the main modern justification of hereditary monarchy: to put some restraint on politicians rather than let them pursue their own special interests complacent in the thought that their winning elections demonstrates popular approval. When former president Theodore Roosevelt visited Emperor Franz Joseph in 1910 and asked him what he thought the role of monarchy was in the twentieth century, the emperor reportedly replied: “To protect my peoples from their governments” (quoted in both Thesen and Purcell 2003). Similarly, Lord Bernard Weatherill, former speaker of the House of Commons, said that the British monarchy exists not to exercise power but to keep other people from having the power; it is a great protection for our democracy (interview with Brian Lamb on C-Span, 26 November 1999).The history of England shows progressive limitation of royal power in favor of parliament; but, in my view, a welcome trend went too far. Almost all power, limited only by traditions fortunately continuing as an unwritten constitution, came to be concentrated not only in parliament but even in the leader of the parliamentary majority. Democratization went rather too far, in my opinion, in the Continental monarchies also.