An anon posts a critique of democracy, and argues in favor of monarchy:
Democracy rewards popular ideas instead of good ideas. Even in a homogeneous society where only educated, employed, tax paying males who own property could vote, it would still be consensus rule which always tends to drag things down to the lowest common denominator.
The main argument in favor of it is that ‘the people” should have a say in the decisions that affect their lives. The problem with this though is that even intelligent, well bred people don’t always understand the complexities of politics or economics well enough to make informed decisions, so democracy usually ends up becoming some sort of representative system like the ones that most modem nations have. What you usually end up with in that situation is what we have: a huge, complex bureaucracy governed by career politicians who do whatever they have to do to win votes while advancing their own personal agenda.
A much simpler, much better system is to just have a monarch who inherits power by right and is raised from birth to understand statecraft and to think in terms of what’s best for the nation. Worst case scenario you get the occasional bad king who needs to be deposed and replaced with someone better. Compare that to our current system, where “checks and balances” have created an impossibly complex webwork of corruption that is proving almost impossible to repair from within.
I don’t quite know if monarchy is the right answer. Humanity’s history have tried with various forms of it. While it can work, it doesn’t always seem superior to what we have now. His critique on the flaws of democracy were very on point, though.
Original screen cap:
Temple of Zagan 