Democracy vs monarchy

Listen to article

Since its inception, humanity has longed for an ideal state - one where the rule of law is maintained, socio-political rights are safeguarded, and fundamental rights such as education, health and security are ensured. These aspirations are achievable when a governing body prioritises the welfare of its people above its own interests. The question remains: which form of governance is better — democracy or monarchy?

Democracy is often described as a government of the people, by the people, for the people, as famously defined by Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address (1863). In this system, power lies with the citizens, who elect leaders responsible for creating a government that maintains the rule of law, provides quality education and healthcare, and secures the safety of its citizens. A fundamental feature of democracy is the right to dissent, allowing opposition voices to challenge or support the decisions made by the government. The collective will of the people plays a central role in governance, and mutual consensus is highly valued.

Monarchy, on the other hand, is a form of governance passed down through family lineage, without the direct input or consent of the people. The monarch holds supreme power and their decisions are unquestionable. In such systems, the king or queen controls the military, treasury and judiciary, and the distribution of rights such as education, health and security is entirely dependent on the ruler's discretion. If the monarch is capable, these rights may be upheld, but in many cases, they are secondary concerns.

Let us now compare the merits of democracy and monarchy using figures and statistics. According to the World Forum on Democracy, electoral democracies represent 120 of the 192 existing countries, constituting 58.2% of the world's population. The Democracy Index, issued by The Economist Intelligence Unit, categorised 167 countries based on governance. Of these, only 24 were fully democratic, 48 were termed flawed democracies, 36 were hybrid regimes, and 59 classified as authoritarian.

Data from Google sources says that countries with welfare-focused governance models, such as the US, the UK with its parliamentary democracy, and China with its one-party rule, rank highly in education, healthcare and quality of life.

The US records 2.8% GDP growth with a 79% literacy level, while the UK stands at 6.8% and 99%. China maintains 4.6% economic expansion alongside a 99.83% literacy level.

Among monarchies, Saudi Arabia records 4.6% GDP growth with 96% literacy, Oman reaches 5.2% and 97.35%, and Brunei follows with a 4.2% GDP growth rate and a 97% literacy level, respectively.

In terms of education, life expectancy, living standards and social security, these monarchies vary widely. Interestingly, some countries that transitioned from monarchies to democracies have, at times, reconsidered returning to monarchic rule, believing that monarchy offers certain advantages over democracy.

One argument in favour of democracy is that it grants individuals the right to question their rulers and remove them through elections. Every citizen has a voice in governmental decisions. By contrast, in monarchies, executive power lies solely with the ruler, and there are no legal means to challenge their authority. Monarchs are all-powerful, and removing them is only possible in rare circumstances, such as military defeat and internal rebellion.

While both systems have their merits, democracy prioritises the power and accountability of leaders to the people, whereas monarchy offers centralised rule. In the modern world, governance is increasingly judged by its ability to improve public welfare, regardless of its form.

Churchill once said, "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

In the end, the question remains: which system truly delivers the best outcomes for its people. I leave it to the readers to decide whom they support for governance and how they wish to be governed.