What is the difference between a Monarchy and a Dictatorship. Seems to me the former is usually a snotty rich person and the latter is a machine gun toting meanie, but both essentially impose their will upon their subjects. Anyone have the dope on this?
I think generally a monarch has a sense of legitimacy due to birthright, whereas a dictator gets his legitimacy either from fear, or from the guise of “protecting the people” after a revolution.
A monarch inherits and the dictator overtakes the power to rule.
From Dictionary.com:
And…
It is late, so make that “takes over”
Monarch is simply the Anglicized version of the Greek word meaning one (or single) ruler. It has traditionally been used in the sense of a king or emperor.
Dictator was actually an office in the Republic of Rome. It was a temporary assignment established to allow one person to have absolute authority in a period of crisis. The term was generally for six months, but most dictators actually stepped down as soon as the crisis had passed. While the dictator had absolute authority, the other positions of power (e.g., the consuls) continued in their duties to keep the government running, simply deferring to the dictator on matters regarding the emergency.
Julius Caesar was actually Dictator of Rome and never Emperor. Caesar’s Dictatorship, however, was different in form from the earlier office. His “term” was extended in increasing longer periods, up to ten years in 46 and extended to life just before his assassination. It is from his absolute rule (and the extra-legal methods used to secure that position for him) that the word has come down to us in its current form.
Erm, well, living in a monarchy myself, I’d suggest that one of the differences is that there are plenty of monarchs around who don’t impose their will on their “subjects”, in fact who don’t have subjects any more. About the only thing the average European monarch imposes on anybody these days is their taste in suits.
More to the point - a monarch gets the position by virtue of being born to the right parents. Dictators who aren’t also monarchs get to their position by virtue of their actions after birth (working their way through The Party’s apparatus, killing the right people, etc.).
Now, the tricky question is why Kim Jong Il isn’t regarded as a monarch. He wouldn’t have acheived his position if Daddy hadn’t reserved it for him. The reason seems to be simply because he doesn’t call himself King, Emporer or Supreme Grand Poobah or what have you, and more importantly hasn’t reserved succession for his descendants. Maybe this is a job for Cecil.
There are some who would disagree with you – namely, those who commonly refer to the Vatican as a non-hereditary monarchy. The papal office certainly comes with all the trappings of regalia: fancy coronation ceremony, near-absolute authority, life terms, castles, palaces, jewel-encrusted robes, sedan chairs, entourage, funny hats, etc.
Agreed. Similarly, here in Canada H.M. Queen Elizabeth is our monarch and head of state, but it’s essentially a ceremonial role - all actual decisions are made through the democratic parliamentary process. The situation is pretty much the same in the other Commonwealth countries which have retained HM as their head of state. Nor are we subjects of HM; we’re Canadian citizens.
But what about Kim Jong Il? He pretty much inherited his position from his father (no George W. jokes, please) and his only qualification seems to be his lineage. Other than the fact he or his father haven’t declared themselves kings, what makes his rule different from someone like the King of England 200 years ago?
North Korea did not have a provision (either constitutional or traditional) of promoting the next of kin to the head of state. Since Daddy Kim was a (normally defined) dictator, the fact that his son was able (with a lot of preparation from his father) to assume that position on the death of his father does not really affect his status. If Kim Jong Il arranges for his son to assume the power when KJI passes on, and the country seems to accept that as the way things “just are,” they will have taken a long stride toward establishing a monarchy. (Any number of monarchies in the world were established in just that way.)
At this time, however, I would say that the Kims are still in the mode of dictatorship, with the power being taken, rather than passed down in constitutional or traditional order. Kim Jong Il may yet have the law tailored to name his heir as the presumed monarch, but I have not yet read that that has happened. Currently he is “elected” periodically by the ruling party. Similar events have occurred in other countries, notably Syria (nominally a republic, but under the control of the military, with the son being elected to replace the father in 2000).
A dictatorship is usually also characterized by political activity being limited to a single party, where the ruler (or a close relative or other proxy) heads the party as well as the state or the government: for example, the Communist party in the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba; the Nazi party in Germany; the Ba’ath party in Iraq; the Korean Workers party in North Korea. A monarchy seldom limits partisan political activity because the monarch is held above politics.
This is the practice in most modern monarchies. But it is not a necessary condition of monarchy that the position be inherited. In Poland and in the Holy Roman Empire the ruler was elected by the nobility or by a select group of lesser rulers. In the Ottoman Empire for a long time the strongest candidate was chosen rather than the person who happened to be directly in line. Bloodshed ensued as the other candidates were eliminated from making further claims.
Also in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries several countries with no native monarchy just picked a German and invited him to come and be their king. In the case of Finland, the invitation was refused, but in the case of Bulgaria it was accepted.
There are many examples of monarchs who come into power via some kind of coup (e.g., Reza Shah in Iran), which leads me to think that it’s the attempt to confer upon themselves legitimacy based on birth and the passing on of the monarchy to later descendants that define a monarchy.
I think that the two terms deal with two different but often overlapping questions.
The question of who is a monarch has to deal with titles of nobility and inheritability. I would say that all monarchs hold some sort of noble title such as King, Emir, Emperor, etc. Also, the position of monarch is almost always inheritable, though not necessarily by direct descent. I believe that most Middle Eastern monarchs have the power to appoint their successors (i.e. the King of Saudi Arabia has designated his brother as Crown Prince and successor).
The question of who is a dictator has to deal with how absolute and controlling a national leader’s rule is. Saddam was pretty darn dictatorial and had near absolute control of the country, but he wasn’t a monarch. Some of the other Middle Eastern rulers are monarchs and nominally absolute rulers, but in practical terms have to deal with a lot of other power groups in their countries. The Emperor of Japan, on the other hand, is a monarch, but has virtually no political or other power.
Very true. Churchill on Henry IV:
The royal House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg, which has held Denmark for several centuries, was probably the primary exporter of royal scions. Haakon VII of Norway, re-founder of the Norwegian monarchy, was a Danish prince, as was, in a previous generation, George I of Greece, from whom Prince Philip and Prince Charles of the U.K. descend (the latter also being descended from Edward VII’s Queen Alexandria, Haakon’s sister). There were, IIRC, a couple of other royal families that were “Danish exports” too.
Second to them was the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, which of course provided Prince Albert and the Windsors, the Belgian royal house, and the Bulgarian royal family IIRC.