Name me a country, and I’ll tell you if it’s a monarhy or a republic, either by knowing it or by looking it up. But what, exactly, is the definition of “monarchy”? One mostly reads definitions that name the fact that in a monarchy, the entire power of the state emanates from one single person; but that is surely not true for democratic monarchies such as the U.K. where the monarch has a purely ceremonial role in the system of government, and it’s surely true for totalitarian states such as the National Socialist regime in Germany, which is commonly not classified as a monarchy although the entire state focused on one single person, both symbolically and in the actual political practice.
Inheritance for monarchies vs elections can’t be the borderline either, as there have been a lot of elective monarchies around, such as the Holy German Empire, not to speak of the upcoming Papal Conclave. Malaysia even elects its King for a period of five years, so lifetime appointment/election can’t be the distinguishing criterion either.
To me it seems as if it comes down to “A state is a monarchy if calls itself one,” but that’s not really satisfying. Are there any characteristics to tell one from the other on an abstract level?
Also, are “monarchy” and “republic” terms excluding each other, or are there systems that are neither?
In a monarchy, the head of state is a hereditary monarch. Note that “Head of State” is not necessarily “Head of Government” (e.g., in the UK, Queen Elizabeth is head of state, while Tony Blair is head of government). The head of government is in charge of the actual workings of the government.
It’s confusing because in some countries, the head of state = the head of government. In the US, that’s the president. That’s also true of some monarchies (and all of them prior to the beginning of parliamentary democracies).
A monarchy also determines its head of state by birth – only relatives of the king can become king. In a dictatorship, there can be an authoritarian leader, but he came to power from some other method than who his father is. BTW, The leader does not necessarily have to be head of state (Stalin never was).
So, regardless of the type of government, a monarchy is any government whose head of state is chosen by birth.
I believed that it wasn’t necessarily that power of the state (as in political power to run the government) emanated from one person, so much as that the authority of the state descended from that one person. In constitutional monarchies in the british commonwealth, for instance, the Queen or her appointed representative is considered the head of state, but as you say, ceremonially. The authority of the elected government still theoretically ‘emanates’ from the queen (nice word there,) although real practical power is vested in the prime minister etcetera based on parliamentary elections.
I had thought about this too, and this is why I mentioned the Third Reich as an example. Both the authority of a state and its political power seemed to emanate from Hitler’s person directly.
I would qualify this by adding that this heriditary feature must be formally institutionalized. Otherwise, North Korea would qualify as a monarchy. (Of course you could argue it actually does even if it calls itself a republic).
There are also some cases where a dictator has declared himself a monarch, but doesn’t succeed in passing on his throne, e.g. the Central African Empire under Jean-Bédel Bokassa.
There are a few elective monarchies, such as Malaysia at present, and the Holy Roman Empire in the past, where the monarch is elected. However, the monarc h must come from a very small class of people, and the voters are al;so a very small class of people, usually monarchs in their own right in constituent states of the elective monarchy.
The Holy See is a very special case. Arguably, it is an elective monarchy, but it’s a very odd one, since the electors (the cardinals) are not themselves monarchs of states, and don’t inherit their positions.
How does the Vatican fit into this system, then? The head of state (who is also the head of government) is the Pope. Now, he’s the Pope because he was elected the head of the Roman Catholic Church, but what is he to the Vatican? I don’t imagine that there is a terminological difference between his Church hat and his Vatican hat, but what does being the Pope MEAN in the Vatican?
In other words, is the Vatican a monarchy, with the Pope as monarch (though the position isn’t heritable (anymore, anyway)) or is it a republic, since the Pope is elected (although mostly by people who can’t really be called citizens)?
And yes, I know it’s a theocracy or a hierarchy, but those don’t really talk about the structure of the state, only the character of its rulership.
As an aside, I always wondered why Japan, which is a constitutional monarchy whose head of state is titled “emperor,” is simply called “Japan” instead of the “Empire of Japan.”
The hereditary principle isn’t enough for defining monarchy - there have been elective monarchies, and today at least the King of Malaysia is an elective monarch. Also historical ursurpers, if successful, are generally considered to have been monarchs.
When the office of head of state is filled by election or coup it is more of a matter of tradition and prevailing ideology if you call the head of state King, or President (or Pope). A monarch is not necessary the souvereign as she is in the UK, for example the Spanish constitution says that souvereignty is vested in the people (which is why the monarch of Spain, unlike the British one, has civil rights).
What you need for a monarchy- is a Monarch. Of course, there are few- if any- pure monarchies left, most modern Monarchs are more or less powerless.
Most modern “monarchies” are really Republics with a head of state that has no real power and is primarily Ceremonial. That really is a GOOD thing, as the real “Head of Governemnt” then has many less bridge opening ceremonies, funerals and marraiges to waste his/her time.
No, you miss the entire point. A monarch is a person who functions as Head of State with the trappings associated with historical royalty. The degree of power which he or she exercises is irrelevant. Most modern monarchies are democracies, in which the elected representatives of the people exercise the real power of the government.
A Republic is by definition not a monarchy and vice versa, because of the seating of the power and authority of the state, not in an individual either in and of him/herself or as the symbol of the people, but in the institution itself, the res publica.
Head of State and Head of Government are two distinct roles, present both in monarchies and republics, which may be held by the same person, as in the U.S. or in a monarchy where real power adheres to the monarch, or be divided between two people, as in the President and Premier of France, the Queen and Prime Minister of the U.K., the Governors General as representative of the Queen and the Prime Ministers of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the King and Premier of Spain, etc.
You might have also quoted the “government type” from the CIA factbook. Now, they simply say " ecclesiastical". Older editions termed it a “monarchical-sacerdotal state”, supporting the contention that it’s a monarchy by some definition.
It’s unfortunate that most people here appear to be using 19th Century political definitions, when the first cut in defining governments was between Monarchy and Republic. In this system, a Monarchy is any government where the Head of State is not elected and a Republic is any government where the Head of State is elected. This captured most European governments of the era, before the rise of Fascism and (state) Communism and before the resurrection of the notion of a tyrant who didn’t claim a lineage of some kind. (Even Napoleon was styled an Emperor.) In this era, too, Republics were something of an anomaly globally and could be shoved to one side, definitionally speaking.
These days, it makes more sense to speak of Democracies and Authoritarian regimes. In a Democracy, the actual governmental leadership is chosen by free and fair elections, laws can be changed by the ballot, and basic civil rights are respected. In an Authoritarian regime, none of those statements are true. (You can scream about your pet definition of Democracy, but I submit that the person who taught you that definition is very much out of step with both current usage and political reality.)
There is a continuum between the two, of course, and a government can effectively switch classifications over the course of a single election. Politics, like all human exercises, is messy and difficult to firmly classify.
In most modern usage, a monarchy is a country with a king, queen, shah, emir, or something similar, regardless of how much power that person actually wields. I think any refinement of that is silly and somewhat of a distraction from how the term is really used.
I’m not quite sure if there’s a term for it… (forms of state don’t seem to be categorized formally quite as clearly as forms of government,) but in the vatican, the head of state is chosen by an elite council of sorts… which the head of state then nominates replacements to after he is chosen. Sort of a state aristocracy/oligarchy/autocracy mix, though I know it isn’t too helpful.
Bottom line, it ain’t a monarchy and it ain’t a republic. It’s some different breed of state.
Ummm… most people are using those terms because they are the ones that the OP asked about. Sure, forms of “government” are more important lately… but they aren’t really what the topic was. Schnitte was asking what the precise (or as precise as possible) definitions were for forms of state, essentially. Please don’t beat up on us for staying on the original subject of discussion.
