Difference Between Monarchy and Dictatorship
Articles Blog

Difference Between Monarchy and Dictatorship

August 25, 2019

Monarchies and dictatorships. Between the two lies arguably the vaguest
line between any two systems of governance. And by monarchies, I’m not counting the ceremonial
type, as that would make a boring video; I’m talking about the all powerful absolute type,
or at least those that have some autonomy. Dictatorships and absolute monarchies are
the two most easily confused ways of running a country for one reason, absolute power. As opposed to democracy, the entire power
of a nation is vested in one single person. Have you ever noticed that most dictators
have some connection to, or are actively involved in the military? This is hardly a coincidence. The majority of dictators became rulers of
their nations by military takeovers, and military support is vital. Lose the support of a few bureaucrats, tax
collectors, and regional leaders; you can take care of them. But lose control of the military, and your
reign is over. Do something the military disapproves of,
and you could be overthrown overnight. Exhibit A: Robert Mugabe. He may or may not be considered a dictator,
but he was nonetheless a powerful tyrant. This brings us to the first fundamental difference
between a dictatorship and a monarchy. Monarchies are usually inherited and descend
from a royal or noble lineage, called a house, while dictators typically acquire power through
force, or if an elected leader refuses to step down. But you, curious viewer, mention that the
North Korean Kim Dynasty and the Assads of Syria are dictatorships who have passed on
the position of head of state through multiple generations. This brings us to the second significant difference
between the two systems of governance. Monarchies usually refer to themselves as
well, the monarchy, while dictators refer to themselves as Leader, Chairman, President,
General, or some other title, but never dictator. Take for example Kim Jong-un. His official title is “Chairman of the Worker’s
Party of Korea”, but he is an infamous dictator, while the country he rules is officially named
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. North Korea is neither democratic, nor belonging
to the people, nor a republic, and barely half Korean. I’m pretty sure that’s a failing grade on
a vocabulary test. Now, for the third main difference. In 1815, nearly every European nation was
ruled by a monarch, while dictators were virtually nonexistent on a global scale. Fast-forward to 1950, and most of the European
monarchies from the early 19th century had been abolished, while dictatorships across
the world were flourishing, and about to get worse. This is because when monarchies are abolished,
they are usually followed by liberty. Dictatorships however, usually arise from
the instability of liberty. Take for example when Spain withdrew its presence
from Latin America, Latin America became liberated from the Spanish Royalists. After liberation, various individuals assumed
power through force, thus beginning the infamous era of Latin American dictatorships. There are however some instances where liberation
is bypassed altogether and a monarchy is overthrown by a dictator. You could sit there and listen to me nitpick
at the differences between the two for hours, but that is why YouTube gave each video a
comments section, so goodbye, for now.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. Sometimes a monarchy can be combined with a dictatorship No im not talking about Saudi Arabia but for example Mussolini was the prime minister of the Kingdom of Italy, Victor Emanuel III was king

  2. Ah..so not really a difference, just time and success over time. And with time we mean generations. And dictators being vaguely more modern (though Rome had dictators too).
    Nice video 🙂

  3. Dude you are actually incredible deserve 100 of thousands of subscribers than you have right now consider me subbed

  4. The dictorships in Latin America were sponsored by the US in order to take down elected socialist presidents. Just saying

  5. I hope many also see that dictatorship and tyranny are two different things too. Dictatorships don't have to be focussed on power mongering and unequal distribution to people, as to popular western belief (And propaganda as opposition to 'democracy'). A tyrant however, does suppress its population heavily.

  6. this video try to explain a difference when there is none. the real reason why the british monarch are not "at the moment" consider dictator is for the simple reason that the queen does not enter the house of commons. of course if she order her guard to storm it, she would be a dictator. thus the difference lies not in name or how power is acquire but in action. monarchy and dictatorship are not exclusive to each other, saudi arabia being a prime example of this. the video is bad in that it justify these regime as credible state when they should not be.

  7. I would point out that the type of monarchy that you call the ceremonial type, is not seen as simply a diluted boring cousin to absolutist monarchy. There are numerous constitutionalists who argue that constitutional monarchy is the best form of government for a number of reasons: having a non-elected head of state who can represent the country in cultural events/state dinners etc. allows the prime-minister to focus more entirely on governance. Also, by not coming from any political party, the head of state is always someone who in theory does not alienate half the population. The potential longevity of monarchy allows for the long-term development of relations with the heads of state of other nations and provides useful political capital to any prospective government. There is a lot to say about UK constitutional conventions here too: though the Queen's powers are prescribed, if she ever refused to assent to an Act of Parliament, or as an easier example refused to make a declaration of war, then there would be a constitutional crisis. However, constitutional conventions are only backed up by popular uproar. In theory, if a government tried to do something that was so unpopular that the monarch did not believe that it would result in a collapse in its popularity, then the use of the prerogative would be justified, and the action would be legitimate. Some of these ideas are tough to explain, but if anyone is interested in the nuances of constitutional monarchy. I would advise looking around online. 🙂

  8. Adolf Hitler is Guardian of Germany. and was Elected…….
    USA is also DICTATORSHIP has the PRESIDENT Signs to Attack other Countries.

  9. Dictators take advantage of the instability of freedom after a monarch has been overtrown. If the dictatorship spans enough generations, the dictators become king again.

  10. You should do an "incognito mode" with the Internet Historian.
    Cus' you call yourself "Mr Cognito".

  11. Hay man I love the videos, but change the art style for visual representation, your videos come off as too much like “GCP Grey”. No more stick figures, sorry man but I can’t help the way I feel.

  12. Actually North Korea is a Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. They hold elections every 5 years where you can vote for Kim Jong Un or Kim Jong Un. That is democratic if I say so myself. They have a lot of socialist influences, so they are for the people. Okay I can’t prove the republic part at all. And they are “of Korea” because the own the majority of the peninsula. You see, it’s definitely a Democratic People’s [Republic] of Korea

  13. Democracy means power to all, which does not mean choosing a very small amount of people to have power
    Rome, before it was a republic, had a king with absolute power who was elected by the people. There have been states with no one person ruling – maybe a parliament and judiciary which appointed each other without elections

  14. Monarchy: The king steals from the people

    Democracy: Every person or group has the opportunity to steal from each other

  15. Also there’s legitimacy. Because of laws of succession, the new king will usually be the legitimate heir of the old king. Dictators must always seize power, making them illegitimate rulers. Thus they have to take more measures to secure their position i.e. purges, executions, etc.

  16. "Do you have money?" That's the 100% accurate definition of Democracy, I don't care what you did, if you've got money you literally run the country

  17. Is the same shit is depends of the culture race instability economy rules on the internacional war table and how as the boss in the table right now the real boss is united kingdom they fuck the world all the time for just fun

  18. Many absolute monarchs also maintain(ed) their power via their military, so they're really not too different from dictatorships in that regard.

    And yeah, dictatorships do arise from the instability of liberty… and so did monarchies. And after the collapse of a dictatorship, like with a monarchy, liberty (generally) follows.

    Really, the only different between the two is what they call themselves and their countries.

  19. I would like to point out that most monarchies started the same way as dictatorship.
    For example, William the first of england, i.e William The Conqueror
    The same goes for the Saudi monarchy with Muhammad Ibn Saud.
    So, the real difference is time and the development of a culture that makes the dictatorship look glamorous.

  20. Dictatorship is way better than monarchy or any other government system! but being a dictator is a lot better 🙂

  21. Dictatorship: The rule of one for the interests of the few
    Monarchy: The rule of one for the interests of the many

  22. should make a video on how drug cartels are pretty much underground Monarchy's where they sit back and pay their high generals money to collect rent and drug money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *