Most Proven Form of Government?

[Prodigal]

Which type of government do you think has been best proven as effective from history? This is not a hypothetical "I think government should be like this" thread. It is more focused on the most successful and well run governments of the past and whether or not you would advocate it for this day and age. (If this should be under Vestigia Vetustatis, go ahead and move it)

My personal preference is monarchy, which has evidence over an extremely large span of time. Looking at history, I believe it was the most used system of government, is this not proof of it's success? The main reason why it might not work today is the liberal/conservative economy thing, whereas in the past, there was just feudalism. I personally would advocate a modern, conservative monarchy following free market capitalism.

[Justinian]

I do not understand anyone who is a monarchist. Democracy is clearly the best system, and the reason it has been implemented in almost every first world nation in some way.

[Farnan]

The world believed the heavans revolved around the Earth longer than they believed the Earth revolved around the Sun. Does that mean that the Heavans revolve around the Earth?

[Azog 150]

In terms of proven types of government it would probably have to be Absolute Monarchy.

[Denny Crane!]

What has caused the most deaths and what has caused the least? Seems like a pretty good way of measuring it. Communism or the so called 'attempts' at communism and other forms of autocracy has led to the most deaths. Communism then dictatorships like Hitler. The least has been democracy though it isn't without its failings. Democracy is the best but by far it is an unfinished work. The more we care about liberty the less people die. Anyone seeing a pattern?

[Del Valle]

I don't think any system really can be called the most successful. Democracy has produced great men (Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, FDR), but it has also has also produced some vile creatures (Nixon, Hitler). The same can be said for monarchy, with some great leaders (Suleiman the Great, Hadrian, Peter the Great) being balanced out with idiots (Caligula, Wilhelm the II). The reason I believe democracy is so widely liked is the sense that you have some power over your life, while with the others you aren't even given the chance to give advice.

[barbarossa pasha]

One important argument that you might level against democratic states is that they are fundamentally divided and indecisive, and are thus less capable of protecting themselves from more authoritarian and centralized regimes. But the experience of the 20th Century shows that democratic countries are supremely capable of defending themselves and mobilizing the population and the economy to protect their existence and their interests. The stronger the democratic institutions, the better.

Overall, I can't see how modern liberal democracy is not the most proven form of government, except that it has had a shorter period of existence.

Looking at history, I believe it was the most used system of government, is this not proof of it's success?

Only if by 'most proven' you simply mean most ubiquitous.

I personally would advocate a modern, conservative monarchy following free market capitalism.

I suppose by modern you mean one that is within the purview of the law? At any rate, the problem with monarchy is that the personalities thrown up are not always the best to deal with the situation, and if they don't live up to the tasks at hand there is no legal way to get rid of the monarch. Additionally, because power is centralized there is less diffusion of responsibility and the controls over who can advise and rule with the monarch are likely to be highly relaxed at best, if not nonexistent. Do you think it would be particularly good if the US was ruled by an absolutist monarch who surrounded himself with incompetent favourites and who liked to increase his own personal prestige by subjugating other states militarily? This isn't a necessary result of untempered monarchy, but it is certainly a possible one.

[Armenum]

I really liked the Government of the United Provinces which was a Republic. I personally prefer multi-party systems and one unified assembly. I dislike American government because of all the divisions which make it impossible to implement anything. The EU system of government is better, but still not what I would call ideal.

[Prodigal]

This isn't a thread for judging my opinions, rather, coming up with your own.

[barbarossa pasha]

Well, then I am wondering why you think that a monarchy is the most proven form of government, and not simply the most historically prevalent. This isn't a judgement really, its wondering why you think that.

[blackwatersix]

I'm with Antonis on this one. Monarchy to me is the best, simply because it's managed to exist far longer, and in nearly all countries and cultures, than other forms of government, like democracy. This enduring quality says volumes about its effectiveness.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Well monarchies are horribly corrupt but fairly consistent. But I think a Republic is the most proven system.

[Nevins]

It is clearly a Republic. No other form of government allows its citizens as much freedom or encourages economic prosperity to such a degree.

[Stavroforos]

Republican democracy.

[Wilder]

Constitutionally based republican democracy.

But of course I am biased.

[43rdFoot]

Constitutional republic.


What the OP described is hereditary Fascism.

[Prodigal]

Constitutional republic.


What the OP described is hereditary Fascism.

While we're all having fun jabbing at other people's beliefs, I'd like to say that republics are ruled by mobs of stupid, uneducated people who vote based on smile and eloquence that the person doesn't really have. Monarchs are trained and raised just for the job to be given to them.

[blackwatersix]

While we're all having fun jabbing at other people's beliefs, I'd like to say that republics are ruled by mobs of stupid, uneducated people who vote based on smile and eloquence that the person doesn't really have. Monarchs are trained and raised just for the job to be given to them.

bravo! With most "democracies" it becomes the rule of the many, that many not necessarily knowing what's good for them. Sorry for the intellectual elitism, but this point would be in sharper contrast if you live in the Philippines. I see this everyday, the masses being hoodwinked by media-savvy politicians who upon analysis forwards his or his family's interests instead of the country's.

Philosopher-Kings is the way to go.

[Stavroforos]

While we're all having fun jabbing at other people's beliefs, I'd like to say that republics are ruled by mobs of stupid, uneducated people who vote based on smile and eloquence that the person doesn't really have. Monarchs are trained and raised just for the job to be given to them.

Yes, like George III. Or Nero.

[Prodigal]

George III is revered in Britain. He was a great king. The only real mess up in his life was losing America, and that was minor compared to what he achieved. Nero shouldn't have been allowed to rule. They wouldn't let a man like him rule nowadays in a civilized monarchy.