Monarchy system
The rule of law may be at best an imperfect way of settling disputes and reconciling differences between citizens. By their very nature, laws are general and are designed to apply to one or several of the many categories of social relationship.
But the problems of a society are expressed in particular terms; they pertain individuals in a different social contexts also change over the time. Enlightened monarchy was consequently the most efficient and the most just way of ruling a state; it guaranteed that the basic guidelines of the society would be implemented according to the changing circumstances and the particular needs.
Supporters of the monarchy system of governance even in contemporary times also have argued that this kind of government maximizes the chances of political stability, especially in the context of sweeping social and economic change. In fact, the student of comparative politics must be impressed by the relatively high stability of contemporary states that have retained their monarchical institutions in some case over the centuries of time.
England, Sweden and Denmark are the clear examples but one should also include the category of present-day constitutional monarchies those of Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia and Spain.
In striking contrast to the relatively stable monarchies of these states, the other monarchies in the twentieth century have been overthrown and eliminated in Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Turkey, Portugal, Italy, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Egypt, Greece, Ethiopia and Iran.
Rule by one man, then, is not a guarantee of political stability. What explain s the variations in these findings?