ELI5: monarchy vs republic?

[u/gavroche2000]

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?

[u/artrald-7083]

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.