argument top image

Is a Monarchy or Republic more beneficial?
Back to question

A republic permits equitable distribution of power

The power is with the people here; they may elect the candidate they consider most capable to represent the population to serve as the head of the state. The voice of the people is integral to the success and growth of the nation, as the people may also make concrete changes. Power is also divided and balanced.

The Argument

A republic is a state without a sovereign leader. The foundational rule of a republic is that the people themselves choose the leaders who will represent them. The people govern their state through representatives, so republics are usually differentiated from direct democracy, but most modern representative democracies are republics.[1] Any form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch can be called a republic.[1] To be a citizen of a republic, one must accept certain rights, take on specific responsibilities, and be virtuous. The social philosophy of republicanism rests on the idea that the prosperity or ruination of a state depends on how moral its people are.[2] For many reasons, many believe a republic is a more beneficial form of government than a monarchy. The central principle of a republic, which is "sovereignty is with the people," means that all power lies with the people. Holding general elections and choosing representatives allows the people to make sure, or at least expect that, their representatives will serve the common good.[3] If the citizenry is represented, laws are more efficient, and the state runs smoothly.[3] This system of choosing representatives gives the people a sense of responsibility. Since representatives are elected, the republican system is democratic, and representatives can be voted out and held to account.[3]

Counter arguments

A republic is not more beneficial than a monarchy because it has many downsides. For example, the elections held for the selection of representatives are quite costly. In poorer countries, the high cost of an election can have unfavourable consequences for many communities.[3] Another downside to a republic is that ideally, a republic should be small and have little to no diversity amongst its citizens.[3] A large, diverse republic can easily fracture into different factions and special interest groups.[3] In such a case, instead of pursuing the common good, each faction or special interest group will seek the most political power to achieve its specific goals.[3] If the citizens are not virtuous, if they become too diverse in their views and goals, or if the state becomes too large and its citizenry breaks into competing factions, then the republic will no longer be able to divide and balance power.



Rejecting the premises

Further Reading

James Madison's theory of the republic is very different from most others since he argues that a large republic is better than a small one. Read about it here:


This page was last edited on Monday, 23 Nov 2020 at 11:35 UTC