Arguments Against Anti Monarchism

Monarchy is one of the eldest forms of government in the galaxies long history. Whether it be from the King of Alderaan to the Emperor of the Galactic Empire monarchs usually hold a place in at least every corner of the known universe. A monarch is associated with culture identity, stability and rule of law all of which prove to be better for the people of one said government and the people of which they hail. It is sad to say but there are few monarchs left in the galaxy and they are always at risk of abdicating in favor of a republic or a dictatorship installed by the so called ‘masses.’ With courage and dedication, Long Live the King!



In Monarchy the conscience of law tends to unite the people within the state while in a republic the conscience of law tends to disregard the role of the state for the society;

Monarchical conscience of law tends to perceive the state as a family and the monarch as a pater familias while the republican conscience of law denies this notion. Since the republican conscience of law praises individual freedom in the republican state people do not recognize the people of the state as a family;

Monarchical conscience of law is very conservative and prone to keeping traditions while republican conscience of law is always eager to rapid changes.

In a Monarchy the monarch represents all the people not a certain majority or minority but all the people

A monarch makes decisions out of what he/she knows will be in the interest of the nation not what is popular with masses in order to get reelected

A monarch is trained from birth to rule. By the time he is 20 he has the experience that it takes politicians most of their adult lives to acquire. And history has proven that most leaders are most effective during their younger years

Monarchs usually enhance culture and religion to the state while republics denounce the ideas culture and replace it with the ideas of secularized out looks; The most famous of which is current monarch of Hapan King Alex Tylger

A very engaging proposition, doctor. While I am a fervid proponent of the idea that a strong, centralized power does wonders for order, unity, and tradition, I must offer this in reply.

While I cannot argue that training and example from birth is invaluable, it is much more difficult to instill charisma, which is needed to inspire a people. Perhaps long-lived loyalty and nationalism can be substituted for a time, but not indefinitively. It is my belief that even on a ruling council, one will naturally rise above the rest in influence, not legal power, and become a bastion of popular affection and loyalty, from which flows prosperity.

On that note, the success of a monarchy depends on the monarch. A poor monarch can do just as much to cripple his people (denying any help that might sway his people from him or challenge his authority) as a good one can to prosper them. This need not be tied to their kingship, but by their ability.

So then, while a strong, centralized power offers much benefit to the masses, a Monarch can only be removed by abdication or revolution, which is a determent to the people. In its place, I offer that natural leaders rise in governing bodies to lead the government on, and therefore the benefits of a monarchy need not be exclusive to the presence of a ruling lineage.

This is an interesting position; however, I must respectfully disagree with it. Mr. Luz addresses several of the points I considered, but I will detail the rest and compare monarchy with a republic and dictatorship.

The main point I need to bring up is the matter of succession. In the case of most monarchies, leadership passes down to the eldest child, no matter qualified or unqualified he or she may be. There may be some monarchies out there that pass leadership to the most qualified child, but those would be few and far between. However, in the case of a republic, the people elect their new ruler every set amount of time. While part of the elections are undoubtedly just a popularity contest, most people choose the most qualified candidate. In the case of a dictatorship, the dictator chooses their successor from the most qualified of their subordinates. In both a republic and dictatorship, the successor is much more likely to be a qualified ruler than in a monarchy.

I tend to see monarchs as representing the elite classes, as opposed to the general populace, but that is likely just my opinion on the matter.

In regards to the conservative keeping of tradition and laws, that is not always the best route. While I do appreciate tradition, traditions do occasionally become outdated and require change. The same goes for laws.

I also disagree with the claim that republics denounce culture. Many a republic has a branch of government devoted to preserving and enhancing their culture.

My final point is that, by default, monarchies aren't any better or worse than a republic or dictatorship. It really depends on who is running the government that decides how good or bad it is. Each system has its pros and cons, but they can all be fairly comparable in regards to effectiveness.