Differences Between Monarchy, Dictatorship and Aristocracy?

Question

I am reading a book entitled "A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution" by Carol Berkin. The founding fathers' goal was, among other things, to avoid creating a monarchy or aristocracy. I am familiar with the definition of both terms, but I am not familiar with their historical applicability.

The colonists had a negative experience with a monarchy. What I would like to know, are monarchies always bad? On a practical level, how does a dictator differ from a monarch? Are the differences significant or are they more similar (historically speaking) than believed? Are dictatorships always bad?

Also, what countries have been governed by an aristocracy? Is aristocracy always a bad thing? Have there ever been any beloved aristocracies?

Please provide examples.

Thank you!

Answer 1

ok. A Dictator is some one who makes all the rules and the people have no say in the matter what so ever for example Hitler. Everyone did what he said and the people had no say in the matter. Dictatorships are not always bad it depends on what the person does with the power that they have. If a dictator where to pass a law in there country that stated everyone will have a job, everyone will have a house to live in, and everyone will have food and water this would be a good thing.

A monarch on the other hand makes the laws however such as in England the parliament is chosen by selected people. This is all i really know on the subject sorry i couldn't answer everything.

Answer 2

Monarchy, such as that of Queen Elizabeth, is usually power inherited by one ruler, whereas aristocracy is hereditary government with more than one person, ex. by the nobles instead of one person.  Monarchies are not necessarily bad, but often become so because of the fact that all the power lies on one person who is not necessarily educated or experienced in government. A monarch is not always a dictator, but may be, since dictators encourage monarchy.  An example of a dictator would be saddam hussein.  

Dictators are usually bad, and the term is often used to describe overly controlling, powerful monarchs.  However, the term dictator did not originally mean a brute, overly powerful tryant.

As for aristocratic governments, an example is Byzantine Empire.  It's not always bad, but again, it can be.

Answer 3

Put simply, a monarchy is almost always hereditary, the throne passing from one generation to another, such as Great Britain and the monarchies of Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, etc. today. In today's world, they are almost always without any real political power and serve more as a figurehead for a nation. The present Queen Elizabeth is a prime example, and unless something prevents it, she was be succeeded as monarch by her eldests son, the Prince of Wales. While there have in the past been monarchs who behaved like dictators, those days have long since passed.

A dictatorship, on the other hand, is when political control is assumed by one person, often by force, and who controls the politics of his country, usually without the input of that country's citizens. Castro, for example, could be classified by many as a dictator.

Aristocracy merely refers to members of the nobility in countries that continue to recognize such titles as dukes, duchesses, earls, counts, and other titles of nobility. The word is sometimes used in places such as the US when referring to a socially elite, and usually wealthy, caste system, but this has fallen out of usage in recent decades. No country has actually been governed by aristocrats.

What the founding fathers of the US wanted to ensure was that there would never be a monarchy in the States, nor a system when some people (such as aristocrats) would be considered better than others - in other words - all men were created equal and should have an equal say in their government. Of course, this is when slavery was still legal and women did not have the right to vote, but that's another issue altogether.

Answer 4

Monarchies and dictatorships can technically be the same thing, but they differ in connotation. Monarchies are usually dynastic, while a dictatorship implies the opposite. The term dictator comes from ancient Rome, and means "speaker" in Latin. In times of emergency, when the Senate and legislative assemblies could not take action quick enough, a dictator with almost absolute power was put in place to solve the emergency. There were several good dictators, Cincinnatus being the most famous, and they were known for giving up power when emergencies passed. However, the power of the dictator was corrupted, as men like Sulla and Caesar used it simply as a means to control the government when there was no real emergency. Dictatorship has gained a very negative conotation as a result. I guess dictators can be good: many people on the left seem to like the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, and many on the right seem to like Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf.

There have been many good monarchs in history (Augustus, Elizabeth, Louis-Philipe just off the top of my head), but the problem with monarchy (and dictatorship) is that the ruler has absolute power. Even if he (or she)is a nice person, they still have the power to start cutting innocent people's heads off at any moment, and so the people's rights and safety exist only on a whim. Plus, power corrupts. Since the Enlightenment, Constitutional Monarchies have been set up, like that in England, which limit the power of the monarch and giving power to a parliament or senate, and absolute monarchy like the one's the American Founders were accustomed to have almost died out in the world.

As for aristocracies, they seem to exist as the ruling body mostly in city states and/or in states where trade is a big source of income. Ancient Greek city states like Sparta and Corinth were ruled by oligarchies (another name for aristocracies) as were merchant empires like Carthage and Venice. Aristocrats seem to take power in places where trade is essential as the leading merchants have most of the money and power and thus seize control. I don't know if any of them were beloved, but their people seemed to see aristocracy as a major improvement on monarchy.

On the other hand, many countries have had monarchies that rule with an aristocracy, especially in medieval Europe. In those cases, the monarch has the most power, while the aristocracy has certain rights and privileges, and so can order around the common people, but are still secondary in power. I doubt any such aristocrats were ever beloved (during the French Revolution, most of the aristocrats in France got their heads cut off).

Answer 5

A monarchy has an individual rule, sometimes theoretically.  There is no one definition, as there are several kinds of monarchies.  An absolute monarchy gives the monarch power over the state and government, while a constitutional monarchy gives most political sovereignty to the people (such as those in the parliament or other kind of legislature), and the constitutional monarch basically serves as a symbol of a figurehead and has little influence.

A dictator differs from the monarch as the monarch usually is hereditary, and the dictator usually doesn't acquire power by constitutional means.  In the Roman era dictators were elected by the Senate in times of emergency to rule the republic with large authority.  In modern times dictators usually come to power because of the same reason--a crisis--and they are unrestricted by law.

Monarchies and dictatorships are not always "bad," such as the enlightened absolutists influenced by the Enlightenment and the benevolent dictators.  "Enlightened" monarchs tended to allow religious toleration, free speech, and the right to hold private property.  Take for example Henry IV of France.  Instead of pursuing expensive wars to suppress rival nobles, he merely paid them off.   He brought peace to France after decades of religious warfare and understood the plight of the peasants.  Also, he sponsored the arts of all classes, contributing widely to the culture of the day.

Benevolent dictators used their authoritarian power to benefit the people.  Lee Kuan Yew, who was Prime Minister of Singapore, is considered by some to have been a benevolent dictator.  The failing economy grew eightfold, and there were virtually no homeless or jobless people.  Lee encouraged stopping families at two children without force in order to control overpopulation.  He also believed in a clean and honest government and worked against corruption.

Nevertheless, there are positive and negatives with every government system, so my examples were in no way 'perfect.'

Sparta had a type of aristocracy at the home level.  South Africa did too during the 20th century, as the priviledged elite was based on race.  Some even consider capitalist countries to be aristocratic, as cultural, political, and economic power can have the most influence with the  highest capitalist class.