Democracy or Monarchy?

Post Summary:
What I understand from the Bible and how it affects my views about Leadership within the family and Leadership within Politics.

Disclaimer: Although I have thought hard and long about these matters, learning to make sense of them in the light of the Bible, they are at best opinions, and they might not fully reflect Biblical principles.

As far as I understand democracy today, it means that the people chooses what form of government they wish to be governed by. Majority wins - and to a large extent, people set up rules that they would like to be ruled by.

Monarchy or other forms of government (i.e. Communism or Republican - ignoring also some other major mindsets which makes them differ from one another), unlike democracy has a more central sort of governance. Governance that would revolve around one person - or a few more prominent leaders. Laws and method of governance would be shaped heavily by HOW and WHAT the leader thinks - majority don't always win.


As I will continue into the pros and cons that an average person would see - Democracy would be something like moderating exam papers. Things are averaged out. For example: If Barrack Obama wins the presidency and he does a bad job for the next 5 years, the effects would not last very long as his performance would cause him to lose votes for the next election. He might have convictions which he stood by that makes him unpopular, but if he wants to stay in Office (whether for his selfish reasons, or some noble purpose), he has to somewhat please the people who holds the power to put him there. In this case, going back a decade or two, Saddam Hussien would have caused less destruction since his people would have brought him down. This I think, is the main advantage of democracy. We could also see how this is good for the fact that - more often than not, people become corrupted and greedy as they amass more wealth and power, to some extent Democracy keeps these issues in check.

On the other hand, the pros of Democracy are where other forms of government like Monarchy would fall short. Haven't we read in history textbooks where kings misuse their power? Think also of the period before the Reformation, where the Roman Catholic church was in a deep corruption issue - that is what normally happens when one person has too much power. Therefore, the effectiveness of the government depends heavily on the character of the leader(s). If the leader is bad, we all to some extent knows what it is like - the lousy and bossy teacher in our classroom is somewhat and image of what monarchy is like. Or for some of us that think of our parents as being some control freaks.

However, another scenario can also occur. At times, by the power of degrading culture and bad media - a whole nation can be affected to think irrationally. For example: look at our materialistic culture. In these cases, even a good leader might not be able to change things just instantly. Look at Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr., although at the first place they are not official leaders that were granted high positions, yet they had to fight the government of their day by influencing the people and persuasion. But if they had power to begin with (i.e. royal blood or something) then perhaps they could change things more instantly.


At the end of the world, when Jesus returns - it is Monarchy though. His character is perfect - and his kingdom wouldn't be ruled by the fancies of us which will so many times land us in trouble - superficiality, fights and wars, materialism. The Bible calls Jesus King, and nobody else Prime Minister or Vice President, there will be no election because God - being the Creator has the RIGHT to rule, whether humans fancy that idea or not.

Now the application that hits me hard is then -

When I am in leadership position - what sort of role do I assume? If I am a person who makes mistakes - should I improve myself so that I am worthy of a "Monarchy" type of position? Or should I follow the flow and let the people choose what they want?

For us who had been in those positions where we knew that "We should have done that earlier" after we lost that match, or did a bad job on a group project... Did we not wish that we had absolute power at some point of time so that everybody in the group obeyed what we said and that we could have gotten higher marks?

Some of us who loathe the idea of Monarchy - let us be truthful with ourselves and admit that this proposition was a reasonable stand. In reality, perhaps most situations demand a tension - sometimes we have to be more diplomatic (democratic) sometimes we have to be more firm with our stands.

What then should we do?

I am more biased to the Monarchy idea. If I am not worthy - yet as long as I am "worthier", I should strive to be more worthy so that I am truly worthy to lead - Monarchy style. In short, people say that is being a control freak. But hey, remember the time when everybody "should have just listened to me"?

Yet, I can see that my style of thinking is a very dangerous one. Hitler certain was convicted of some ideas - although the government of that time was some what called democratic - yet in nature it was more like Monarchy. Look what Hitler did. Crazy man.

In my mind, family governance and political governance don't really differ much. But I think I might be misled in this area. Honestly.

This is ...probably, subconsciously, or something like that.... my effort to make myself "worthier" should I one day rise to a position of leadership. But if where I am heading is grossly wrong and dangerous, somebody please save me....

What do you think?