This post was written by a student. It has not been fact checked or edited.

Since the dawn of modernization and the revolution of civilization, there has always been a need for rulers who will take the decisions of a nation, country, or kingdom, and previously a solution was found which is MONARCHS. For many centuries monarchs have ruled and have presided over their kingdoms and empires but more recently their people have decided that monarchy can no longer be accepted as they say it brings inequality and discrimination. The monarchy system of government is now being exchanged for a system of rule (democracy) in which the rights of the citizens are upheld and treated equally but this left me wondering which system of government is better. Let's take a brief look at these two systems:

According to Google, these are their definitions: DEMOCRACY is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives while monarchy is a form of government in which total sovereignty is invested in one person, a head of state called a monarch, who holds the position until death or abdication.

Based on the definitions above we can see that there is a sharp contrast between these two systems, while democracy allows for the involvement of the people of a nation, monarchy does not allow for the participation of the people. Also while in a democracy power is shared among different arms of government in a monarchy power is concentrated in the hands of a single ruler. These are some of the many differences that these two systems of government have..

In 43 countries today they still have a monarchy like Qatar, the Britain, Belgium, Japan,Indonesia and South Africa but they play different roles that still gives them some power but in Britain and Japan they monarchs play a largely ceremonial role which left me wondering can the two systems of government be adopted at the same time and if they can is there a way in which they can both can share power.

In the democracy system of rule I think it's challenge is that there could be corruption and instability and why I say so is this. In democracy there is atenure for rule which in my country is 4 years which mean their power span is limited unlike the monarchy which means some corrupt leaders will want to loot their country for the period of time they are there also for a democracy to work one will have to satisfy the needs of people with contrasting efects which could lead to fights and since a government is not fixed if a leader creates problems it will have to be solved by anotheer who will success him and since they may have different ways on how to fix it causing instability.

All in all I think which ever system of government is chosen should be left to the choices of the people of that region I think their decision should conform with their needs and requirement. These are both two great system of government but only one will stand DEMOCRACY OR MONARCHY.

Comments (5)

You must be logged in with Student Hub access to post a comment. Sign up now!

  • From my point of view:
    With regard to the monarchy, it depends on inheritance from the father to the son and from the son to the grandson, and so on, and this family continues to obtain power, like Britain, for example. We witnessed before the days of the coronation of King Charles on the throne of Britain after Queen Elizabeth II, but in this system the greatest authority is not for the king, as he heads the prime minister The government that participates in the system of government in Britain, which is often composed of members of the largest party that obtained the largest number of votes through a free and fair electoral process to be the head of the government of the United Kingdom, and this is good because decisions and laws are discussed by a group of ministers, but in a democratic system all citizens participate equally in choosing the ruler by voting, and he is responsible for setting the state’s decisions and laws, and this is also good.

    and as you said, the two systems are wonderful, and the evidence is the progress of countries.

  • I agree because... In contemplating the age-old debate between democracy and monarchy, it becomes evident that both systems have their distinct characteristics and challenges. Monarchy, with its historical significance and singular leadership, has provided stability and continuity throughout the centuries. However, the concerns of inequality and discrimination associated with monarchy have led many societies to transition towards democracy, where the voice and rights of the citizens are upheld and treated equally.

    The contrasting nature of these systems is evident. Democracy allows for the participation of the people in decision-making, while monarchy concentrates power in the hands of a single ruler. The existence of monarchies in various countries today, albeit with different roles and levels of power, raises the question of whether both systems can coexist and share power harmoniously.

    One challenge faced by democracy is the potential for corruption and instability. The limited tenure of elected leaders may tempt some to exploit their positions for personal gain. Moreover, the diverse needs and conflicting opinions within a democratic society can lead to clashes and challenges in governance. With successive leaders offering different solutions to problems, instability can arise.

    Ultimately, the choice of a system of government should be left to the people of each region, taking into account their specific needs and requirements. Both democracy and monarchy have their merits, but it is the people who should decide which system best aligns with their aspirations. Let their decision be a reflection of their collective will and may it lead to a system that ensures fairness, inclusivity, and the pursuit of a brighter future for all.

  • You're absolutely right! The people of a region should have the freedom to choose the system of government that best suits their needs and desires. Democracy allows for equal representation and a voice for all citizens, while monarchy provides stability with a clear line of succession. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, but ultimately the people's choice should be respected. It's important to remember that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to governance, and what works in one place may not work in another.

  • Welcome ,
    One of the challenges to democracy is the potential for corruption and instability. The limited term of elected leaders may tempt some to use their positions for personal gain. Furthermore, the diverse needs and conflicting opinions within a democratic community can lead to clashes and challenges to governance. As successive leaders offer different solutions to problems, instability can arise.

  • The question of whether monarchy or democracy is superior or more firm is subjective and depends on personal beliefs and values. Both monarchy and democracy have their own strengths and weaknesses, and their suitability may vary based on historical, cultural, and societal contexts. Here are some characteristics of each system:


    Strengths: Monarchy can provide stability, continuity, and a sense of national identity. Monarchs often serve as symbolic figures that transcend political divisions and provide a unifying presence. They can represent historical and cultural heritage and act as a neutral arbiter in times of crisis.
    Weaknesses: Monarchy can concentrate power in the hands of a single individual or family, limiting the participation of citizens in decision-making. The hereditary nature of succession can be seen as undemocratic and may not allow for merit-based leadership. Monarchs may also be distant from the day-to-day concerns of the population and can face challenges in remaining relevant in rapidly changing societies.

    Strengths: Democracy allows for the participation and representation of citizens in decision-making processes. It values individual freedoms, human rights, and equality. Democratic systems typically have checks and balances, separation of powers, and mechanisms for accountability, reducing the risk of authoritarianism. Citizens have the ability to elect their leaders and hold them accountable through regular elections.
    Weaknesses: Democracies can be complex and slower in decision-making compared to autocratic systems. They are susceptible to populism, polarization, and gridlock. Ensuring fair representation for all citizens and preventing the influence of money and special interests can be ongoing challenges. Democracies also rely on an informed and engaged citizenry, which can be difficult to achieve in practice.
    Ultimately, the preference for monarchy or democracy depends on individual perspectives and the specific context in which these systems are considered. Many countries have adopted democratic forms of government, emphasizing the principles of individual freedom, human rights, and popular participation. However, constitutional monarchies, where the monarchy coexists with democratic institutions, have also proven successful in countries like the United Kingdom, Spain, and the Netherlands.

    It is worth noting that many modern constitutional monarchies have limited powers for the monarch, with the majority of governance being carried out by elected representatives. This allows for a combination of stability, symbolic representation, and democratic decision-making. Ultimately, the superiority or firmness of a system depends on its ability to effectively meet the needs and aspirations of its citizens while ensuring stability, justice, and the protection of individual rights.