Originally Posted by
germanaviator
Ok, I'll try. But it is very hypothetical. Typically a king is not chosen by the people. In fact I think that is part of the definition of a king and queen that they are not elected. Having said that, there are many forms of monarchy including democracies where the monarch has only ceremonial functions or very limited real political power. Canada is an example. There are many others.
A king can most certainly be chosen by the people. King’s of Sweden, for example, were elected.
In fact, Hamilton argued for an elective monarch (for life) to rule the newly formed United States.
A monarchy can be a democracy if it is what is called a constitutional monarchy. The constitution could be written or unwritten.
A monarchy, by definition, cannot be a democracy.
Some of the things that characterize a democracy are free elections, free press, an (independent) judicial system, a constitution of sorts. You get the idea.
None of those things “characterize” a democracy. What characterizes a democracy is that the people make the laws, rule of the people nothing else. If the people choose to have laws against free press, etc. that would be a very democratic thing.
A constitution does not make a democracy, rule of the people does. You can have a constitution with a democracy, oligarchy, or monarchy. It does not transform all into democracy.
So a monarch who is typically in power for life and who makes all the decisions, laws etc is not a democracy. A monarch who is elected by the people and who has to run for re-election after a term is up and who is bound by a constitution could be considered a representative democracy as it would be the people who choose their representative and the people who could remove that representative from power. All that goes against the definition of what a Monarch is, though.
What if the monarch is in power for life because the people voted that way? Would that not make it a representative democracy by your very definition?
So a Monarchy can really only be a democracy if the Monarch has very limited real power and the important decisions such as law making are made by elected representatives, or, less likely and less desirable, directly by the people. Most democracies around the world are a representative democracy and some may also have a monarch as the formal head of state but with little to no real political powers.
You cannot have both a monarchy and a democracy, they are contradictory.
The issue here is that the word democracy has lost its meaning. Most do not associate democracy with its meaning, rule of the people, but rather with a notion of what is good and what is consented to. Consent of the people is not the same as rule of the people. Consent is required for any government to rule, but who rules determines the type of government that exists.
Democracy: rule of the people
Oligarchy: rule of the few (this is your “representative democracy”)
Monarchy: rule of one