Currently there are around 45 monarchies in the world (list of current sovereign monarchs). Going through the list I do not see many cases in which the monarchy being introduced in recent history.

However, in some of these monarchies it is common to read some of these arguments to reinforce them, such as:

  • Having someone above political decision gives stability to the country.
  • The monarch can be the best ambassador for the country.

To me, all of them are no-sense, since a good king can be perfectly followed by a very bad one, and not much can be done. However, a politician can be revoked in the next election.

This makes me think that these arguments are somehow created by the establishment through the media to reinforce their power, so that no big political changes take place. If you read "our king is very useful for the union of the country", etc, you may end up believing that if it comes from all media.

This being said: is there any good, objective argument to sustain the usefulness of a monarchy in the 21th century?

  • 2
    You might want to look into arguments by people arguing for monarchy in a non-monarchic state, e.g monarchists in Russia (some are quite high profile respected people)
    – user4012
    Mar 26, 2016 at 23:22

1 Answer 1


Current stability

Many of the countries on the list of constitutional monarchies are currently stable. For example, is there a serious argument that there is a problem in the constitutional monarchies of Sweden, Norway, or Denmark? They are three of the most egalitarian and democratic societies of the world.

Changes can have unintended consequences. For example, in most constitutional monarchies, the sovereign can dissolve a government and force a new one to form. As a result, they may not have another law allowing that to happen in emergency circumstances. What happens when such a law is really needed?

Now, if you're asking if a country should add a sovereign where there wasn't one previously, that's harder to argue. Then the stability argument cuts the other way.

Absolute monarchies

Retaining constitutionally limited monarchies also has the effect of making it easier for absolute monarchs to cede some power. If an absolute monarch can see the wealth and influence of the British monarchs, it may be less worried about passing power to others. This encourages them to pass power to moderate dissenters rather than wait until forced by revolutionary extremists. In general, constitutional monarchies are more stable than dictatorships.

Warlord rule

Most monarchies started because powerful people preferred that monarch to alternatives. In most countries now, this would be regarded as a step back. But there are some countries that are ruled by local warlords that might benefit as a result of switching from multiple warlords to one monarch. Giving the monarch the benefits incents him or her to control the warlords. Having one law for the entire country encourages commerce.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .