text: royal absolutism or constitutionalism:which is more dynamic and flexible?   if i understand your question correctly, you are asking if a monarchy is any better/worse than a constitutional democracy?  well - short answer - absolute power absolutely corrupts.   in a constitutional society - there are supposed failsafes in place to keep any one person or party from having complete control.  in a monarchy - complete control is untested, expect by a popular uprising or coup d'etat (overthrowing the current power by force).  however, if you look at our current constitutional democracy, it almost feels more like a monarchy. those with the most wealth pay whoever the current leader is to bend the rules for them, to make them more profit.   it just goes to show you - neither method is perfect.   i would say that the one positive that a monarchy has over a consitutional society is this: a consitutional society can become apathetic to its involvement in the government. the "failsafes" that are supposed to keep our leaders from corrupting have failed us greatly.   i believe that we, as a nation, rely too heavily on those laws created over 200 years ago, though they do not work any longer.  we have been lulled into a false sense of security and have too much faith in our leaders and our system. this unflinching faith means that we are not so inclined to put pressure on our corrupt leaders, as the masses of a monarchy would be.   to put it more simply - we think we are safe, so we dont do anything to keep our leaders from abusing us.   either way, though, you generally end up with the same result, because "absolute power absolutely corrupts"