Originally Posted by
NE_Pilot
In fact, Hamilton argued for an elective monarch (for life) to rule the newly formed United States.
George Washington was offered the job, and notably turned it down. He also declined to run for a third term as president, on the same principle.
Originally Posted by
NE_Pilot
A monarchy, by definition, cannot be a democracy.
Yes. You can have a constitutional monarchy, with rules (ie Magna Carta) and democratic (or at least republican) trappings but it's still a monarchy if the the monarch has any actual authority.
But most modern monarchs are in fact simply nostalgic figureheads with ceremonial duties, who are re-imbursed for expenses incurred in their official capacity. The US could choose to have the Queen of England as our monarch tomorrow and it wouldn't change how we operate one little bit. Or we could go with the Emperor of Japan, same result.
Notable exception: The King of Thailand still has some power in a constitutional monarchy, but not very much.
Originally Posted by
NE_Pilot
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?
Only if said monarch-for-life could be recalled by the voters if his performance degraded at some point. If it's truly for life, and he has some actual authority, it's not a democracy... constitutional monarchy at best. I think both Xi and Uncle Vlad fall into the constitutional monarch category now, in practice if not in title.
Originally Posted by
NE_Pilot
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.
Yes.
Originally Posted by
NE_Pilot
Democracy: rule of the people
Oligarchy: rule of the few (this is your “representative democracy”)
Monarchy: rule of one
I would argue that the accepted (and published if you go look) definition of Oligarchy is rule by the few, without many constraints by the people. A republic is not an oligarchy. Some people like to complain that the US is an oligarchy because of the freedoms enjoyed by our financial class but I don't think that's really the case because if we the people get sufficiently annoyed we can easily regulate the hell out of the money-men (might even see that in 2021, the way things are trending). Apathetic is not the same as powerless. Lazy and content is also not the same as powerless.