IS SOUTH AMERICA RULED BY MONARCHIES OR REPUBLICS ? NAME THOSE RULED BY MONARCHY AND REPUBLIC
Answers
Monarchy involves the vesting of state power in one person. Monarchs usually bear the title of "King" or of "Queen", but "Prince" or "Grand Duke" will do the trick. ("Emperor" or even "Caliph" may count as pretentious.[1][2]) Monarchies differ technically from dictatorships in that there are limits on a monarch's powers, whether this be due to tradition,[note 1] a body of nobles who have some claims on the monarchy (as in much of feudal Europe), or a parliament (originally more of the same sort of nobles) to which the monarch is actually subservient (as in modern European constitutional monarchies). Usually, monarchies are hereditary; the descendants of the monarchs are born to rule. This hereditary factor can lead to problems, since the ruling family (or families) tend to interbreed a bit too closely for genetic comfort. Besides, an inspiring and successful hero-monarch may have indolent descendants more interested in butterfly collecting than in important matters such as national aggrandizement and personal prestige.
The philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) regarded monarchy as the best form of government, though he considered its corruption (tyranny) the worst. However, Aristotle's model for thinking about states was a Greek city-state, very different from the modern-day nation-state (think current monarchies like Liechtenstein, Monaco, Luxemburg, Brunei ...).
Note that, despite the (quite justified) general revulsion towards most forms of strong monarchy in the modern world, the monarchical concept survived quite successfully for most of history, while at the same time, the working class struggled for survival. In periods before and after the Middle Ages, many of those successes were achieved thanks to blood, toil, tears and sweat of common people who risked their lives and did all the hard work. In the century before the First World War of 1914-1918, many European and several Asian monarchies survived by accepting constitutional limits. During the interbellum period several of these states reverted to royal dictatorships, including Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria and Thailand, which is one reason for the association of monarchism with the authoritarian right.
With that said, monarchy is not necessarily backward or ultra-conservative any more than republicanism is necessarily more left-wing or progressive; there are quite a number of democratic constitutional monarchies just as there are repressive ones. At its best (or at least when done right), a monarchy can help instill a sense of continuity and community to its realm, with the monarch him/herself serving as a mediator between different democratic bodies; ideals like noblesse oblige,[note 2] not to mention the notion that royals live in "gilded cages", also provide additional checks and balances to power. There have been plenty of liberal if not impressively democratic monarchs. One example is King Juan Carlos I of Spain (reigned 1975-2014), who spearheaded the dismantling of Francisco Franco's fascist polity.
Outside the Arabian peninsula, monarchs (and even royal families) these days tend to leave the governing to the competent and get on with their real job, public relations.[3] A notable exception was Nepal, where the King was both autocratic and incompetent, and was removed by a coalition of political parties and Maoist insurgents (2006-2008).[4]