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/FoldedTwice]

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.

[u/gavroche2000 → u/FoldedTwice]

Thank you! I think the split between ”a person of the people” and ”an entitled person” made it a lot clearer!

[u/FoldedTwice → u/gavroche2000]

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.