What exactly makes a country a monarchy?

[Derleth]

@chrisk

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.

I don’t get that out of the thread at all. It seems that the OP is asking for help in defining a term, and I gave him help by pointing out a flaw in everyone’s thinking.

I do recognize the difference between the form of government and the form of state. It makes definitions more useful (you get a picture of how things happen, not how things are painted) and more difficult (you have to figure out how things really happen, sometimes without the government’s help). For example, is a self-styled monarchy with a weak king that is really governed by a palace intrigue a monarchy or an oligarchy? Is that self-styled democracy really a multiparty state or are the elections rigged? Politics enters into it fairly quickly.

[zagloba]

I have frequently seen Great Britain referred to as a constitutional monarchy.

Among historical elective monarchies is Poland, where all of the szlachta, or noble class, was entitled to vote. At one point this was around 10% of the population, though not all of them could make it to the elections. This system existed well into the 18th century.

[wellington]

Just finished the Chronicle of the Roman Emperors, and discovered that many emperors were not the children of the previous monarch. It appears that many were selected because of their skills/power/influence, and to make things official, were adopted by the existing monarch to pass along the “throne”

[scotandrsn]

@Derleth

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.

Actually, the classic definitions of government were laid out by Aristotle, in Politics, Book 4, section VII :

Having determined these points, we have next to consider how many forms of government there are, and what they are; and in the first place what are the true forms, for when they are determined the perversions of them will at once be apparent. The words constitution and government have the same meaning, and the government, which is the supreme authority in states, must be in the hands of one, or of a few, or of the many. The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but governments which rule with a view to the private interest, whether of the one or of the few, or of the many, are perversions. For the members of a state, if they are truly citizens, ought to participate in its advantages. Of forms of government in which one rules, we call that which regards the common interests, kingship or royalty; that in which more than one, but not many, rule, aristocracy; and it is so called, either because the rulers are the best men, or because they have at heart the best interests of the state and of the citizens. But when the citizens at large administer the state for the common interest, the government is called by the generic name- a constitution. And there is a reason for this use of language. One man or a few may excel in virtue; but as the number increases it becomes more difficult for them to attain perfection in every kind of virtue, though they may in military virtue, for this is found in the masses. Hence in a constitutional government the fighting-men have the supreme power, and those who possess arms are the citizens.

Of the above-mentioned forms, the perversions are as follows: of royalty, tyranny; of aristocracy, oligarchy; of constitutional government, democracy. For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all.

The previous two books laid out a lot of what Aristotle meant by a constitutional government, and my understanding of what he meant by “democracy” has always been that it more closely resembles what we would call anarchy, but make of it what you will.

[calm_kiwi]

Basicaly, living in a democratic monarchy is cheaper.

No presidential election required.

All the real power is elected during general elections.

[Otto]

@RealityChuck

It’s confusing because in some countries, the head of state = the head of government. In the US, that’s the president.

Just to nitpick, the POTUS is the head of one branch of the government. There may be the perception that the POTUS is the head of state but constitutionally that isn’t the case.

[Acsenray]

@Otto

Just to nitpick, the POTUS is the head of one branch of the government. There may be the perception that the POTUS is the head of state but constitutionally that isn’t the case.

Yes, this is an interesting distinction. The constitution mentions no head of state at all. However, the president carries out all the functions one would expect of a head of state.

[Schnitte]

Thanks to everybody here for the reactions to my OP. I agree with Derleth that the republic/monarchy classification is based on notions that date back to previous centuries and nowadays less helpful than the distinction between democracy and dictatorship. But then again, the republic/monarchy system is well engraved in our understanding of states that it might be worth searching for a systematic approach; maybe the fact that this distinction monarchy/republiv has become obsolete illustrates that it’s largely a matter of tradition to determine if a state is one or the other: It’s a monarhy if the head of state is styled in a way heads of state used to be styled in the past.

[Hypnagogic_Jerk]

I think the reason why Nazi Germany wasn’t considered a monarchy despite the fact that almost all power was in Hitler’s hands is that the Weimar Republic Constitution was technically still in effect. Here is a link to the Enabling Act, one of the laws promulgated in 1933 to give the Nazis exclusive power over Germany. What I find interesting is that they prolonged it twice, since, I believe, this kind of “emergency” law could only constitutionally remain in effect for four years. So in a sense, they were trying to show that they were still a constitutional republic, and not an absolute monarchy.

But of course, this doesn’t change the fact that the Nazis held de facto absolute power.