@Dashrender said:
Well let's use the UK, since it's the only one I know a tiny amount about.... The queen has very little real power. Most everything is run by the Parliament. Is that not the same for the rest of those countries that you listed?
Perhaps I'm thinking of monarchs wrong - is it not a single person who's word is law (save for the contract of a constitution, which just seems weird with regards to a monarch/dictator).
Yes, which is why I prefer a stronger monarchy that most of these have become. Although some of them have a bit stronger monarchs than others. Some the king (or queen) still wields a pretty sizable amount of power and/or influence.
Throughout history, though, kingdoms and empires have had the most stability. Modern history, look in terms of a hundred years or so, is misleading as great empires had millenium of history. Like living in Spain, for example, pretty much only three empires have run it for well over two thousand years with some pretty great luck. It was Rome for around 800 years. Then it was Al Andalus for another 700. Then it was the Kingdom of Spain in the Holy Roman Empire for another 700ish. It's recent history with the empire disbanded is just a blip in the imperial history of Spain. And the king still sits and to be a Spanish citizen one must claim fielty to the throne.
Persia, Rome, Byzantium and others stood for lengths of time that are mind boggling and commanded massive percentages of the world's population. Castro was a 1/2 generation dictator over a really small island. Hardly plays into the statistics for success or failure. And one has to wonder how badly he did.
The greatest work of human civil engineering of the century was done by a dictator that most westerners despise (with good reason), but his love for his country led him to do things that it is often believed a democracy could not even do.
