One issue that never seems to get adequate treatment is just how unpopular democratic leaders tend to be. There have been a fair number of monarchs who were remembered well after reigns lasting for decades, but almost every democratic leader seems to become stale and unpopular after just a few years in office. Indeed, in the contemporary West, pretty much the entire political establishment of every democratic country is regarded with antipathy. In theory you'd expect presidents and prime ministers to be more popular than kings, because they're chosen by the people and the people can choose candidates with the qualities they admire, but in practice it never seems to work out that way. Even if people in general are bad at choosing leaders, you'd expect them to occasionally choose a good one through sheer chance if nothing else. I'm not sure if the problem is that democratic politics encourages division so any candidate is automatically hated by 50% of the electorate, or that the qualities required to rise to high office are incompatible with the qualities required to do a good job once you're there, but it seems like an issue worth pondering.
I think the reason is quite simple. Kings and queens are seen as fathers and mothers to their people. Their whole raison d'etre is to be rulers, they have no other life - in that sense, they are not careerists. They don't have to campaign, be nasty and cutthroat. They can just be who they were born to be. And this inspires love in the people.
One issue that never seems to get adequate treatment is just how unpopular democratic leaders tend to be. There have been a fair number of monarchs who were remembered well after reigns lasting for decades, but almost every democratic leader seems to become stale and unpopular after just a few years in office. Indeed, in the contemporary West, pretty much the entire political establishment of every democratic country is regarded with antipathy. In theory you'd expect presidents and prime ministers to be more popular than kings, because they're chosen by the people and the people can choose candidates with the qualities they admire, but in practice it never seems to work out that way. Even if people in general are bad at choosing leaders, you'd expect them to occasionally choose a good one through sheer chance if nothing else. I'm not sure if the problem is that democratic politics encourages division so any candidate is automatically hated by 50% of the electorate, or that the qualities required to rise to high office are incompatible with the qualities required to do a good job once you're there, but it seems like an issue worth pondering.
I think the reason is quite simple. Kings and queens are seen as fathers and mothers to their people. Their whole raison d'etre is to be rulers, they have no other life - in that sense, they are not careerists. They don't have to campaign, be nasty and cutthroat. They can just be who they were born to be. And this inspires love in the people.
Without🇻🇦. That - i might get behind.
I can’t see it, not a ‘🚫🇻🇦’ version.
I can’t see it.