Republic, Monarchy or Despotism

[GroeneWolf]

For this poll I will use the four forms of state that Montesquieu has named in his book De l'Espirit des Loix. Alto your free to fill in your choice in more detail.

[SwordOfTheVistula]

Aristocratic Republic, I do not think every idiot should be allowed to vote, though I think participation should be based on merit (education or economic success) as opposed to heredity.

[Berrocscir]

In an ideal world I'd keep everything localised and decentralised as possible. Some sort of corporatist model also appeals to me...I've totally lost faith in liberal democratic set-ups

[GroeneWolf]

I myself have voted other. Alto for reasons of tradition I'm a monarchist. I also realise that the present generation of our royal house doesn't realy act in the best intrests of their nation, or even atemept to. However I cleary reject despotism for the highly negative effects it has on the economy and personal intiative.

However I think that if the royal dynasty no longer functions it can best be replaced with an Aristocratic Republic, of course if meassures have been taken that the Aristocrates are certain minimal quality. Since Aristocracty means in essense rule by the best. And I don't realy have high confidence in the masses to decide.

[Bärin]

Despotism because I guess it comes closest to dictatorship.

Despotism is a form of government by a single authority, either an individual or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute political power. In its classical form, a despotism is a state where one single person, called a Despot, wields all the power and authority, and everyone else is considered their slave. This form of despotism was the first known form of statehood and civilization; the Pharaoh of Egypt is exemplary of the classical Despot.

The term now implies tyrannical rule. However, in enlightened absolutism (also known as benevolent or enlightened despotism), which came to prominence in 18th century Europe, absolute monarchs used their authority to institute a number of reforms in the political systems and societies of their countries. This movement was probably largely triggered by the ideals of the Age of Enlightenment.

I don't agree with "everyone is considered slave" though, I rather say the nationals are like children.

[GroeneWolf]

Despotism because I guess it comes closest to dictatorship.

Despotism is a form of government by a single authority, either an individual or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute political power. In its classical form, a despotism is a state where one single person, called a Despot, wields all the power and authority, and everyone else is considered their slave. This form of despotism was the first known form of statehood and civilization; the Pharaoh of Egypt is exemplary of the classical Despot.

The term now implies tyrannical rule. However, in enlightened absolutism (also known as benevolent or enlightened despotism), which came to prominence in 18th century Europe, absolute monarchs used their authority to institute a number of reforms in the political systems and societies of their countries. This movement was probably largely triggered by the ideals of the Age of Enlightenment.

I don't agree with "everyone is considered slave" though, I rather say the nationals are like children.

I don't agree with that it is the first form of statehood. First of all to inspired by a lineair concept of history. Also most tribes are hardly ruled despotic and the smaller social unit of the clan probaly even less.

Also I refered to Montesquieu who roughly lived afther that era. But the absolute monarchies weren't realy reforms. But efforts to increase the power of the monarch, with other words moving closer to despotism. Because it wanted to limmite the influence other noble families had on state-affairs. The nessary balance so to speak to keep the monarch in check had to be undone.

[Bärin]

I don't agree with that it is the first form of statehood. First of all to inspired by a lineair concept of history. Also most tribes are hardly ruled despotic and the smaller social unit of the clan probaly even less.

Also I refered to Montesquieu who roughly lived afther that era. But the absolute monarchies weren't realy reforms. But efforts to increase the power of the monarch, with other words moving closer to despotism. Because it wanted to limmite the influence other noble families had on state-affairs. The nessary balance so to speak to keep the monarch in check had to be undone.

Could you give the definition of despotism and the others by Montesquieu then?

[GroeneWolf]

Could you give the definition of despotism and the others by Montesquieu then?

I will give an ultra short summary. But your free to give your own definition of the term to explain your choice.

Despotism put quit simple is where one man rules absolute and unchecked, except for maybe religion.

In monarchy there is of course an monarch. But it's power isn't absolute. to use some arguments of Benoist he is a soverein and not an autocrat.

An aristocratic republic is a stateform where a number of important families rule so to speak. Lets take for example the Roman Republic before it extended certain political rights to the plebians it where the patarcian families who held the power.

Democratic republic is a form of republic where the masses hold the theorical power. Alto in almost all cases it is/was delegated.

That was from my head and just searched for a link with some more information :

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montesquieu/#4.1

[Bärin]

Umm I didn't notice the democratic republic there the first time. Would the democratic republic have anything to do with the model in the DDR where the citisens could still make decisions but on a limited basis? Because then that's what I would vote for.
Otherwise,
from these explanations I still would pick despotism.