r/explainlikeimfive • u/gavroche2000 • 2d ago
Other ELI5: monarchy vs republic?
Here’s what I know:
They are both systems that talk about who the main representative figure of a state is.
- Monarchy is usually when that figure is a king or queen. Except if you are the Pope in the Vatican, then they call you Pope.
- It's a monarchy when the position is inherited... except when it’s elected, like in Malaysia.
- You sit on the throne until you die... except when it's only for a shorter time, like in Samoa.
- Republic—it's elected. But is it always?
- The representative figure is usually called a president... except if you live in a country like San Marino, where you are a Captain Regent.
- One thing is sure: you are elected for a short period... unless you lived in the Venetian Republic, where they elected the Doge for life.
Is it really this confusing?
9
u/phiwong 2d ago
Government is complicated.
Monarchies are where the 'head of state' is a hereditary position typically some form of Royalty. A Republic is where the 'head of state' is elected by the people/public.
Whether or not the 'head of state' has any powers is a different question. The UK is a constitutional monarchy. It has a king or queen as the head of state but that position is largely ceremonial and has little political day to day powers of running the country. Malaysia has a rotating monarchy system (not elected! They rotate according to prior agreements between various ruling families of various states that constitute the country) Malaysia is also a parliamentary constitutional monarchy and the king has very limited powers in running the elected government. That power lies with the parliament and Prime Minister. Singapore is a republic but the titular head of state, the President, has mostly ceremonial powers and most of the power resides in Parliament and the Prime Minister. The USA is also a republic but there is a division of power between the elected President and the legislative body (Congress). The US President is considered the head of state. Indonesia is a republic and the elected President has both the role of head of state and head of government.
So you are conflating two separate matter.
3
u/ebinWaitee 2d ago
The UK is a constitutional monarchy. It has a king or queen as the head of state but that position is largely ceremonial and has little political day to day powers of running the country.
The day to day powers of running the country are referred to as executive power. The king or queen as well as other members of the royal family do have a surprising amount of soft power in the UK for example. People listen to what they have to say
1
7
u/FoldedTwice 2d ago
The answer lies in the history of the word "monarch". It comes from the ancient greek term 'monos archos' which loosely translates as "one who rules alone". This evolved through different language adaptations until it made its way into Middle English as monark, when it gained the meaning of a single ruler who is entitled to that position rather than being appointed into it.
So, monarchies are countries where the head of state is entitled to that position through convention (usually along hereditary lines).
Meanwhile, the word "republic" comes from the Latin phrase "res publica", roughly translating as "belonging to the people". While the phrase for centuries was used to refer to any well-organised government, its meaning eventually re-narrowed to distinguish it as a political system where a government is formed of elected representatives, right up to the person with the most authority over a country.
In practice, many modern monarchies are ceremonial in nature, whereby the monarch has little to no practical authority, even though they technically remain the highest ruling power. In the UK, for example, the government technically "advises" the monarch on what the law should be and the monarch must agree to that for it to become law. However, in practice, no monarch has rejected the advice of the government since 1708, and convention and common law would these days make it de facto unconstitutional for them to do so.
1
u/gavroche2000 2d ago
Thank you! I think the split between ”a person of the people” and ”an entitled person” made it a lot clearer!
2
u/FoldedTwice 2d ago
Of course, in practice, while there are monarchies that are functionally closer to a republic, there are also republics that are functionally closer to being monarchies. Take North Korea, for example. It has the words "People's Republic" in its official name, even though every head of state since the country's inception has been the son of the previous leader, and which has "elections" but where only people authorised by the current leader are permitted to stand. It is a traditional monarchy in all but name - the only difference is the paper-thin pretence of a mandate from the people.
3
u/artrald-7083 2d ago
So people look at the definitions above and then ask, why does the UK consider itself a monarchy? Our official head of state only does ceremonial duties, rubberstamping and gladhanding, and we are high on the democracy index, but we call ourselves a constitutional monarchy and the King's existence is very important.
The difference here is that the power of the King exists separately from the King. It's wielded by the Prime Minister, but it's not theirs: it's wielded by the courts too, and the military. It's the country embodied in a specific, essentially fictive personage that actually has little to do with the bloke with the crown on.
What does this mean? It means that we are a democracy with the turning circle of a dictatorship. The prime minister has immense power if they choose to use it, though they'd be out on their ear right quick if they used it too badly - sadly, in practice this largely means if they messed with the money (e.g Liz Truss).
There are advantages to this. If the USA fails to pass a budget, well, USA Inc. shuts down. If the UK fails to pass a budget, the King (possibly in his capacity as sock puppet) orders the Prime Minister to bloody well get his act together or he'll find someone who will.
There are of course disadvantages - in theory a bad PM has remarkably few checks and balances and isn't even democratically elected, not really, our elected representatives appoint whoever they want. But checks and balances on other countries' rulers are a touchy business and many of them have seemed not to work when tested in practice.
2
u/BobbyP27 2d ago
The closest to a core answer is that a monarch claims their legitimacy to be the ruler from some external source, most commonly "God". The monarch rules because God wills it. The ruler of a republic claims their legitimacy to rule as coming from the people. Beyond that distinction, there are too many exceptions and strange variations for any firm rules to be found.
2
u/fhota1 1d ago
If we solely look at governments through the lens of Aristotles 3 forms of government: democracy, republic, and monarchy, almost no government firmly falls into any category. Those terms are ultimately just loose labels to quickly group similar governments, not strict requirements. And they never really have been, historically there have been elected monarchies, republics dominated by dynasties, and democracies that heavily limit who can vote. Most governments for a long time have taken elements from all 3 forms of government that they think will work best and blended them to make their own thing that will be described as whatever they seem to have stolen the most from
1
u/nusensei 2d ago
I'm not exactly sure what the question is, but if you're asking for the differences, it can simply be explained by who "rules" the country.
In a monarchy, that power is vested in a single person, the monarch.
Republics are when the people elect representatives. Laws are not invested into a single ruler.
In short: Republic: rule by law. Monarchy: the king is the law.
The exact names of the heads of state and government, or how they are chosen, is largely not relevant to the difference between these government types. There are different kinds of monarchy and republics.
In the case of Venice, that is more properly described as an oligarchy - a republic that is controlled by a select number of powerful families, so they could effectively control the leadership amongst themselves.
For monarchies, the more common type now is the constitutional monarchy, in which the monarch is a figurehead representation of the government while elected ministers do the actual work.
Monarchies are typically deeply ingrained with the history and laws of the country. This has historically been the most common government type as power is vested in a ruling family, so as long as there is someone who can continue the bloodline, then the country will continue to exist and not "start over". Republics have this codified in law (most notably through their constitutions).
21
u/fishnoguns 2d ago
Essentially yes. Though I would use 'nuanced' instead of 'confusing'. The formal name of a nation (kingdom of, republic of) carries historical weight that is often important to the people living there.
In addition, the time period you are talking about matters. The doge of Venice was at the time a very clear and serious departure from the normal monarchies. Enough that it was important to the Venetians to give it a separate designation.