The hypothesis of an inherent tension between monarchies and democracies is ideologically incontestable. Because monarchies, in the original sense, create a superior class of elites who, it is asserted, are born to rule. A monarch is defined as one who rules over a people with a sole, supreme, and usually hereditary authority, according to Merriam-Webster’s Thesaurus.
The inference in that statement is that the former is an absolute monarch, like King Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia; whereas the latter is a constitutional monarch, like King Charles III of United Kingdom; with circumscribed powers, pursuant to the 1689 Bill of Rights; which established the rights and liberties of subjects and settling of succession to the Crown. On the flipside, democracy is an egalitarian philosophy, where political leadership is determined by popular legitimacy in that the person with the largest number of votes is elected to political office. Unsurprisingly, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), characterised it as the government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Evidently, the dynamic tension between monarchies and democracies is not far-fetched because the former is purely determined by the asymmetric circumstances of one’s birth; whereas the latter is determined by widespread support. According to the 2023 Economist Democracy Index, out of 167 nations globally, 108 (64.6 per cent) countries are either full, flawed or hybrid democratic regimes; and 59 (35.
4 per cent) nations ar.
