Philosophy Argument for a Federal Monarchy

[Aldarion]

Democracy, by its nature, is opposed to freedom - and to democratization of society. The reason lies in the fact that democracy promotes centralization. Government has the legitimacy of a popular vote, which means that the government becomes much more extensive. Rather than seeing it as a danger to be restricted, various groups start seeing it as a tool for promoting their own interests. Citizens, corporations, everyone wants to first take control of the government and then subvert it to their own needs. And thus government grows and bloats, like a particularly gluttonous Pizza the Hut.

Elections are hardly an answer. All politicians are drawn from the similar millieu, vast majority of them being career politicians - there is a reason why politicians in Greek Democracies were "elected" by a lot. As a result, there is no functional differences between political parties. This does have some positive effects, because it ensures continuity of policy (to an extent). But this very effect defeats the purpose of the elections and the multi-party system as such - system becomes essentially a single-party one, irrespective of the actual number of political parties. And because politicians have chosen politics as a career, vast majority of them are psychologically problematic, being either psychopaths or sociopaths. As a result, assumption inherent to a centralized democracy - that power will be held by not-evil people - is actually an extremely dangerous one.

Neither is the absolute monarchy an answer. It is cheaper in terms of state apparatus, but is similarly intrusive and centralizing. It has neither the popular vote of a democracy nor the systematic decentralization of a feudal or a federal state as its "saving grace". It is efficient, but its efficiency is a direct result of its lack of freedom: authoritharian regimes in general tend to be more efficient at implementing policies because they have less red tape to cut through. But that very efficiency also means that they run themselves into the ground, as there is not enough time to see the effect of their policies: they will have cut their head off before even noticing they had swung the sword.

Democracy further promotes internal conflict. Various subgroups come to see each other as enemies, as they vie for power which is concentrated in the central government. Greater the power of the central government, greater the conflict - and nature of democracy ensures that central government will continue accumulating power, due to issues stated in the first paragraph. This then leads to censorship and dictatorship (modern-day Progressives being a case study in that).

What needs to be done is:

1. Reduce the central government
2. decentralize general decision-making process

Reduction of government means that the causes of bloating have to be discarded. This means elections and, more importantly, powers of the central government. Vast majority of political power has to be returned to the local community, with higher authorities only acting as mediators between two entities of the same level, but without the ability to influence internal policies of any single entity. Monarchy is actually ideal for this purpose. With a democratic central government, everyone has interest in making it larger and more intrusive because everyone sees it as a potential tool of promoting their own interests. When central government is monarchical, local governments see it as a danger to themselves and seek to see it restricted - that is, in fact, how constitutional monarchy, republic and democracy all appeared.

This decentralization would largely solve most of the issues facing modern societies. Different states, provinces and even municipalities could have different laws. Rather than going crazy over Donald Trumpkin and Beijing Biden, vast majority of the problems and regulations could be solved at the local level, and people could simply move to the city which have laws closest to ones they want. Even political organization could be different in different locales: one city could be ruled by a city council, another by a hereditary duke and third by a bunch of commoners elected through lottery. This is not ideal: people running away from ruined cities and then trying to implement policies which ruined those cities in the first place is easy to imagine. This means that cities should have the ability to reject or restrict immigration, but whether such a system could be implemented in a modern society is questionable - and it would also restrict the usefulness of the decentralization. But if cities are given autonomy solely with regards to internal policies but without possibility of restrictions on migration and trade, and migration between provinces / federal states is restricted, then system could both provide safe political plurality while also providing a refuge from policies one does not like.

In this, monarchy is important. Monarch is not elected, which means that he has tradition on his side, enabling him to act as a watchdog for the government, with the option of breaking the dealock should one occur. Influence of tradition (if one exists, or has developed) also enables the monarch to act as a focal point for resistance against potentially idiotic actions of elected representatives. This role of a focal point also helps to stabilize the whole system. If monarch is elected, it should be by the federal states, not by the popular vote. In that way, he will have to reason to favour more populous states over less populous ones, or to try to introduce the tyranny of democracy.

One problem in all of this is the question of military power, but this can be solved by a system similar to Byzantine thematic system: central government has its own military and each federal state has its military force. Central military should be strong enough to discourage secession, but weak enough to be successfully opposed by several of states in an alliance. Between this and (if implemented) system of election, states themselves would serve as a foundation of power of a monarch and central government, thus forcing the central government to give more attention to the local issues.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Say, how would things be dealt if said monarch has siblings, children, aunts/uncles and cousins and nephews and nieces?

I don’t think possible kinslayers who want to take over are a good idea

 

[Aldarion]

Say, how would things be dealt if said monarch has siblings, children, aunts/uncles and cousins and nephews and nieces?

I don’t think possible kinslayers who want to take over are a good idea

That is why I added the possibility of election by federal states. Though it would more likely work by primogeniture, with states having the ability to reject the monarch if they do not like them, rather than outright elections. Either one works, really, though personally I am in favour of the second option.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

That is why I added the possibility of election by federal states. Though it would more likely work by primogeniture, with states having the ability to reject the monarch if they do not like them, rather than outright elections. Either one works, really, though personally I am in favour of the second option.

I’m honestly kinda weirded out by this lack of a severe attachment to a bloodline or allowing monarchs to be elected from the populace

Does it really count as a monarchy?

Honestly, I don’t know much about monarchies except stuff involving Royal or Noble blood or being descended from some successful warchief millenia ago

Yeah, to a degree, I admit I learned my stuff about Monarchism from memes

Monarchism is something I’ve only heard about maybe 1-2 years ago and I was confused how people can romanticize feudal overlords so much except for nostalgia

 

[Aldarion]

I’m honestly kinda weirded out by this lack of a severe attachment to a bloodline or allowing monarchs to be elected from the populace

Does it really count as a monarchy?

Honestly, I don’t know much about monarchies except stuff involving Royal or Noble blood or being descended from some successful warchief millenia ago

Yeah, to a degree, I admit I learned my stuff about Monarchism from memes

Monarchism is something I’ve only heard about maybe 1-2 years ago and I was confused how people can romanticize feudal overlords so much except for nostalgia

There were many monarchies which did not have severe attachment to a bloodline. Byzantine Empire had "dynasties", but half the emperors of each dynasty were not actually blood related to the dynasty in question (Macedonian dynasty being the prime example). Medieval Hungary did have dynasties as well, but many of those lasted for only 2-3 rulers, and were followed by electing a new monarch (and btw, your father having been a monarch did not guarantee election, even though it improved the chances of such).

Hereditary monarchy is more of a Western European thing, but it is far from being the only form of monarchy, let alone the definition of such.

Also, monarchy =/= feudalism. In fact, monarchs were typically allied with independent cities, small and middling nobility and emerging middle class against large magnates. It was a balance of power, which modern democracy lacks.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

emerging middle class against large magnates.

Didn't know the voices of a middle class counted, I thought it was mostly just said Lords

 

[Aldarion]

Didn't know the voices of a middle class counted, I thought it was mostly just said Lords

They did, because middle class (merchants etc.) largely controlled cities, or was at least based in them. That is why lords tried to prevent development of cities on their land - and why kings introduced the status of a "free royal city", which enabled development of the middle class and thus a basis of power which they could use to counter the magnates.

EDIT: But yeah, that misconception that only nobility counted is rather typical for portrayal of a monarchy. Just look at the A Song of Ice and Fire. It is hailed as "realistic", when in reality most of its politics is refined bullshit - precisely because it "forgot" about the existence of cities, minor nobility and other aspects which served to limit the power of the magnates and the monarchs alike.

 

[Buba]

The title made me expect a case for something like the 2nd Reich or contemporary Malaysia.

 

[Aldarion]

The title made me expect a case for something like the 2nd Reich or contemporary Malaysia.

Yeah, this is more of a case for a First Reich.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

They did, because middle class (merchants etc.) largely controlled cities, or was at least based in them. That is why lords tried to prevent development of cities on their land - and why kings introduced the status of a "free royal city", which enabled development of the middle class and thus a basis of power which they could use to counter the magnates.

EDIT: But yeah, that misconception that only nobility counted is rather typical for portrayal of a monarchy. Just look at the A Song of Ice and Fire. It is hailed as "realistic", when in reality most of its politics is refined bullshit - precisely because it "forgot" about the existence of cities, minor nobility and other aspects which served to limit the power of the magnates and the monarchs alike.

TBF, that sort of portrayal ASOIAF showed was one that was really grimdark and simplistic, and the grimdark part helps make it feel "realistic"

I think most "minor nobility" in ASOIAF are just there to hold over this comparatively smaller "castle" and collect taxes which are given to the Bigger Lord who gives it to the even bigger Lord and finally eventually the King himself. Whilst also having their own soldiers or "Men-At-Arms", who eventually join up with their even bigger Lords' "Men-At-Arms" who join with an even bigger Lord and eventually the King

What's your Monarchy's take on the military? From what I can understand on your Monarchy, blood and "noble status" is not required for leadership. And frankly I'd prefer if a Monarch were to become a military leader, they'd actually have to qualify and if they don't. They must leave.

 

[Aldarion]

TBF, that sort of portrayal ASOIAF showed was one that was really grimdark and simplistic, and the grimdark part helps make it feel "realistic"

I think most "minor nobility" in ASOIAF are just there to hold over this comparatively smaller "castle" and collect taxes which are given to the Bigger Lord who gives it to the even bigger Lord and finally eventually the King himself. Whilst also having their own soldiers or "Men-At-Arms", who eventually join up with their even bigger Lords' "Men-At-Arms" who join with an even bigger Lord and eventually the King

That is the problem - confusing grimdark for realism. In reality, Gondor is much more realistic take on a monarchy than Westeros, but it isn't grimdark, so... That attitude I think is the consequence of democratic brainwashing, where people are taught that democracy is the best system bar none - look at the claims of the "end of history" that appeared after Soviet Union fell. So if democracy is the only good system, all other systems must by default be evil.

But yes, system as presented in Westeros gives essentially no agency to anyone beyond the royalty and the major lords (meaning Lords Paramount and those immediately below them). Everybody else act less like nobility and more like bureocrats in a modern nation-state.

What's your Monarchy's take on the military? From what I can understand on your Monarchy, blood and "noble status" is not required for leadership. And frankly I'd prefer if a Monarch were to become a military leader, they'd actually have to qualify and if they don't. They must leave.

I didn't really consider it that much. But one possibility is something akin to Byzantine Thematic system, with central government using taxes to support a (relatively small) Federal military force, while each state has its own army, navy and air force. Central military would act as a quick-reaction force, but any major operation would require cooperation of state militaries.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

How would this “Monarchy” feel about say, people keeping their own weaponry as well as producing goods and services outside of big corporations?

Like how would they react to people 3D Printing anime figures?

Just so you know I’m not joking

Would they enforce some guys’ “intellectual property”

 

[Aldarion]

How would this “Monarchy” feel about say, people keeping their own weaponry as well as producing goods and services outside of big corporations?

Like how would they react to people 3D Printing anime figures?

Just so you know I’m not joking

Would they enforce some guys’ “intellectual property”

Honestly, I do not know... all I know is that it would vary from state to state, as states have the ability to decide such things in this kind of a system - and since monarch is elected or at least confirmed by the states, he can't do much about it.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Honestly, I do not know... all I know is that it would vary from state to state, as states have the ability to decide such things in this kind of a system - and since monarch is elected or at least confirmed by the states, he can't do much about it.

Okay

Honestly, without absolute power even on feudal subordinates and smallfolk, they don’t seem like the Monarchs I’m used to thinking off due to fictional portrayls

 

[Megadeath]

Decentralisation will inherently result in reduced efficiency and coherency of response to outside stimulus. Ergo it is less desirable on the international stage, since it weakens the nation to outside influence or attack.

Decentralisation, rather than reducing internal conflict as you suggest can only exacerbate it. You say that the centralisation of power gives a target for groups to vie over, which creates conflict. You do nothing to explain how decentralisation, where different areas will have different values and goals, will mitigate conflict. They will still have those different values and goals, but with greater local autonomy they are free to not only pursue their agenda locally but to try and impose it on others. If history teaches us one thing, it's that no group convinced of the righteousness of their cause is happy to live and let live. Whether it's Christianity or Islam, Communism or Democracy, centralised civilisation under Rome or the freedom of local autonomy, people are always happy to fight to impose what they see as the "right" world view on others. By associating the identity of location with political ideology you just exacerbate the "Us vs Them" mentality. "Well, everyone I've ever met in my city knows that X is true, so why do the idiots in the next town over say Y? Maybe they're just uninformed and we should 'educate' them, or maybe it's a big conspiratorial lie and they need saving from themselves!" The internet echo chamber effect is bad enough without institutionising it IRL.

Decentralisation results in more beuracratic bloat, rather than less. How can it be otherwise when you inherently need a beauracracy for each separate division, and on top of that duplication need extra layers for the interface with the beuracracy of every other area?

-snip-
I didn't really consider it that much. But one possibility is something akin to Byzantine Thematic system, with central government using taxes to support a (relatively small) Federal military force, while each state has its own army, navy and air force. Central military would act as a quick-reaction force, but any major operation would require cooperation of state militaries.

That is a huge issue to just skip over. The ridiculous level of redundancy created by having a separate armed force for each state can not be overstated. Nor can the inefficiencies. Joint operational training is all well and good, but it will never substitute for a well oiled, unified command structure. That's why NATO has SACEUR and similar roles. That's not even touching on procurement, because the idea of dozens of separate R&D and supply chains is just too painful to think about.

In short, there's a reason why such systems passed into obsolescence and were defeated by more centralised systems. Centralised systems, for better or worse leadership, perform better overall. The entire history of humanity is an inexorable march towards greater centralisation, as technology has advanced to keep the states reaction time down.

 

[Firebat]

The reason lies in the fact that democracy promotes centralization.

This is false. Democratic states all over the world are decentralizing and devolutioning like it's going out of style.
It is non-democratic regimes that promote centralization, seeking to solidify administrative control to replace lacking legitimacy.

Democracy further promotes internal conflict. Various subgroups come to see each other as enemies, as they vie for power which is concentrated in the central government.

If the implication is that this does not happen in a non-democratic regime, this is similarly false. Subgroups always compete for power, consolidating their constituencies to promote their agenda, democracy or not.

When central government is monarchical, local governments see it as a danger to themselves and seek to see it restricted

Even if that's true, that is a surefire way to the dissolution of a nation. If your entire solution to reducing internal conflict relies on institutionalized conflict between central and local government, the state will simply fall apart. Neighboring states that do not engage in such self-destructive behavior will gladly exploit these fissures.

Monarch is not elected, which means that he has tradition on his side, enabling him to act as a watchdog for the government, with the option of breaking the dealock should one occur. Influence of tradition (if one exists, or has developed) also enables the monarch to act as a focal point for resistance against potentially idiotic actions of elected representatives. This role of a focal point also helps to stabilize the whole system.

You can not have your cake and eat it. You can't have the monarch as a watch dog, a power broker and a political party while simultaneously expecting monarchy's central government to be powerless to interfere with local governments.

Central military should be strong enough to discourage secession, but weak enough to be successfully opposed by several of states in an alliance.

And who will be the judge of that?
The monarch that is naturally interested in extending the power of his central government?
The states that are naturally interested in making central government a non-entity?
Someone will have to give and in either case, the system falls apart.

 

[Aldarion]

Decentralisation will inherently result in reduced efficiency and coherency of response to outside stimulus. Ergo it is less desirable on the international stage, since it weakens the nation to outside influence or attack.

Decentralisation, rather than reducing internal conflict as you suggest can only exacerbate it. You say that the centralisation of power gives a target for groups to vie over, which creates conflict. You do nothing to explain how decentralisation, where different areas will have different values and goals, will mitigate conflict. They will still have those different values and goals, but with greater local autonomy they are free to not only pursue their agenda locally but to try and impose it on others. If history teaches us one thing, it's that no group convinced of the righteousness of their cause is happy to live and let live. Whether it's Christianity or Islam, Communism or Democracy, centralised civilisation under Rome or the freedom of local autonomy, people are always happy to fight to impose what they see as the "right" world view on others. By associating the identity of location with political ideology you just exacerbate the "Us vs Them" mentality. "Well, everyone I've ever met in my city knows that X is true, so why do the idiots in the next town over say Y? Maybe they're just uninformed and we should 'educate' them, or maybe it's a big conspiratorial lie and they need saving from themselves!" The internet echo chamber effect is bad enough without institutionising it IRL.

Decentralisation results in more beuracratic bloat, rather than less. How can it be otherwise when you inherently need a beauracracy for each separate division, and on top of that duplication need extra layers for the interface with the beuracracy of every other area?

That much is true, but you are telling only half the story. Centralization, on the international stage and in the short run, is indeed desireable, as it results in a "lockstep" society and better ability to mobilize resources of a nation to any external threat. Actions are more focused and more decisive, and government is able to act more quickly.

Problem is that it also leads to the society rotting from within. The very systems which allow centralized society to mobilize resources on the large scale also result in inability to correct intra-systemic flaws. Central government will determine the course of action according to its own priorities and without taking into account various forces acting from within the system, thus leading to internal friction and possible system-wide failure.

Decentralization increases frequency of the internal conflict, that is true. But again, you are seeing only half the problem. Yes, frequency of conflict is increased - but its scale is decreased. This means that even though it is relatively frequent, conflict in a decentralized society is much less harmful for the society as a whole, compared to relatively less frequent but much larger conflicts of a centralized society. Conflict in a decentralized society is frequent, minor, and accounted for - conflict in a centralized society is infrequent, but also massive and highly disruptive. Where conflict in a decentralized society is only locally disruptive, one in a centralized society is globally disruptive.

Various local entities can attempt to impose their agency on the others, true. That is precisely the reason why I did not suggest doing away with the central government alltogether: there has to be something to act as a court in order to solve these conflicts. Did you even fully read what I have written?

Modern centralized democracy institutes the tyranny because it gives the ability to global majority to enforce their agenda even on a local level.

You always need bureocracy. But when everything is controlled from the center, you need more of it because issues have to be transferred back-and-forth at a much greater rate, and government has to keep control or at least oversight of local agencies.

That is a huge issue to just skip over. The ridiculous level of redundancy created by having a separate armed force for each state can not be overstated. Nor can the inefficiencies. Joint operational training is all well and good, but it will never substitute for a well oiled, unified command structure. That's why NATO has SACEUR and similar roles. That's not even touching on procurement, because the idea of dozens of separate R&D and supply chains is just too painful to think about.

In short, there's a reason why such systems passed into obsolescence and were defeated by more centralised systems. Centralised systems, for better or worse leadership, perform better overall. The entire history of humanity is an inexorable march towards greater centralisation, as technology has advanced to keep the states reaction time down.

United States already have said "ridiculous" level of redundancy (US Active Force, US Reserve Force, US National Guard, State Defense Forces). I don't see where is the problem.

Your theory is all well and good, except it doesn't work with historical examples. Matter of the fact is, all systems have decentralized under pressure. Roman Empire first got split into halves, then into quarters (Tetrarchy), and then the Western Empire literally fell apart. Which was in fact a form of decentralization - for people on the ground, it made absolutely no difference that they were now paying taxes to barbarian warlords and/or kings instead of the Roman Emperor. When Eastern Empire was under pressure by the Islamic Caliphates (Rashidun Caliphate, to be exact), it introduced the thematic system - which was a form of decentralization.

Centralization only works when everything is fine and dandy.

This is false. Democratic states all over the world are decentralizing and devolutioning like it's going out of style.
It is non-democratic regimes that promote centralization, seeking to solidify administrative control to replace lacking legitimacy.

There is literally no raw "democratic" state in the world. All those "democratic states" are in fact different forms of republics. Even so, many of them are too centralized. But people who push for democracy also typically push for centralization: see the Democrat-Republican conflict in the US, or increasing authority and interference by the government in many European states.

If the implication is that this does not happen in a non-democratic regime, this is similarly false. Subgroups always compete for power, consolidating their constituencies to promote their agenda, democracy or not.

That is true. But issue here is not the existence of said competition (it always will exist), but rather its nature and scale. Centralization of authority automatically increases stakes in said competition, which means that it thus becomes much more disruptive.

Even if that's true, that is a surefire way to the dissolution of a nation. If your entire solution to reducing internal conflict relies on institutionalized conflict between central and local government, the state will simply fall apart. Neighboring states that do not engage in such self-destructive behavior will gladly exploit these fissures.

It is not self-destructive, otherwise no premodern monarchy will have lasted as long as they did. In fact, this system is superior to many historical systems precisely because the conflict is institutionalized, and thus significantly less disruptive than raw variants of center-periphery conflict.

You can not have your cake and eat it. You can't have the monarch as a watch dog, a power broker and a political party while simultaneously expecting monarchy's central government to be powerless to interfere with local governments.

Central government would not be powerless to interfere with local governments, but local governments would also not be powerless to resist it, as they would be much more than just extensions of the central government. That is the entire point.

And who will be the judge of that?
The monarch that is naturally interested in extending the power of his central government?
The states that are naturally interested in making central government a non-entity?
Someone will have to give and in either case, the system falls apart.

Or things will happen as they have actually happened throughout the history: there will be a push-and-pull from both sides, with each side gaining advantage in certain periods, but never enough to actually fully overcome the other.

EDIT:

Okay

Honestly, without absolute power even on feudal subordinates and smallfolk, they don’t seem like the Monarchs I’m used to thinking off due to fictional portrayls

They are not. Most fictional monarchs are basically 17th-19th century absolute monarchs. But majority of historical monarchs were far more limited in terms of their authority.

 

[Abhorsen]

The problem with monarchy is that a) eventually the worst person gets in charge (like look at the UK: An accident of birth order saved them from having a pedo as king). and b) pretending that a monarchy can be less decentralized than a democracy is hilarious. All that beautiful gridlock goes away. Obama would get through everything he wanted.

Monarchs always try to expand the government as well, because they want more power. And the thing is, it works, because they play the lower powers against themselves. And if they lose, whoop, new monarch, who controls monarch land and their own land. Fuedalism isn't a stable system anymore because of increases in communication technology mean that the advantage for the leigelord is gone, so they have no reason not to take direct control. When we add in nukes, this becomes even stupider.

 

[Firebat]

There is literally no raw "democratic" state in the world. All those "democratic states" are in fact different forms of republics. Even so, many of them are too centralized. But people who push for democracy also typically push for centralization: see the Democrat-Republican conflict in the US, or increasing authority and interference by the government in many European states.

First, democracy and republic are not related. Republic is simple absence of monarchy. USA, Roman Republic and USSR were all republics, despite being radically different in terms of democracy. To say that "those democratic states are in fact a different form of republic" is like saying that "those oranges are in fact warm".
Second, your examples do not support your argument. Democrats and Republicans take turns screaming about states' rights when it's convenient to them. Europe is a region were devolution and decentralization are perhaps more pushed by the states than any other region in the world. Germany & Britain are traditionally decentralized. Spain became decentralized after Franco's death. Italy has decentralized and there are voice which demand more. Even frigging France has decentralized.

But issue here is not the existence of said competition (it always will exist), but rather its nature and scale. Centralization of authority automatically increases stakes in said competition, which means that it thus becomes much more disruptive.

No.
Centralization of authority does not increase stakes in internal competition compared to decentralization. The idea of being a king shit of a shit hill has proven itself time and time again more tempting than having most say at the big table.

It is not self-destructive, otherwise no premodern monarchy will have lasted as long as they did.

Most premodern monarchies did not last, collapsing under their own weight, splintering in a bunch of warring states or gobbled up by more lucky neighbors. Who more often than not suffered the same fate. That was the challenge of premodern monarchy - there was a constant threat of such monarchy going from hero to zero in a generation. Like Attila's huns which went from scourge of God to nobodies with his death.
The ones that did last created more complex systems to de-fang local powers and defuse the internal conflict. Or they had such systems imposed upon them.

Or things will happen as they have actually happened throughout the history:

The government goes down in flames and is replaced by foreign occupation/different government?
Because that's what actually happened as well.
Even when a government had a benefit of not being forced to balance on razor's edge to maintain itself.

 

[Aldarion]

First, democracy and republic are not related. Republic is simple absence of monarchy. USA, Roman Republic and USSR were all republics, despite being radically different in terms of democracy. To say that "those democratic states are in fact a different form of republic" is like saying that "those oranges are in fact warm".
Second, your examples do not support your argument. Democrats and Republicans take turns screaming about states' rights when it's convenient to them. Europe is a region were devolution and decentralization are perhaps more pushed by the states than any other region in the world. Germany & Britain are traditionally decentralized. Spain became decentralized after Franco's death. Italy has decentralized and there are voice which demand more. Even frigging France has decentralized.

1) That depends on the definitions you are using. I am using Roman ones: democracy is Greek system of direct government (so what we today call a "direct democracy"), whereas republic is Roman system of mixed government (so a combination of a monarchy, aristocracy and democracy).

2) That is good if it continues. But "more decentralized than yesterday" does not answer the question of "how decentralized". And you also have the European Union centralizing the continent and slowly taking powers away from the states.

No.
Centralization of authority does not increase stakes in internal competition compared to decentralization. The idea of being a king shit of a shit hill has proven itself time and time again more tempting than having most say at the big table.

I don't care how many people kill each other to be king shit of a shit hill as long as they don't get to murder their own citizens.

Most premodern monarchies did not last, collapsing under their own weight, splintering in a bunch of warring states or gobbled up by more lucky neighbors. Who more often than not suffered the same fate. That was the challenge of premodern monarchy - there was a constant threat of such monarchy going from hero to zero in a generation. Like Attila's huns which went from scourge of God to nobodies with his death.
The ones that did last created more complex systems to de-fang local powers and defuse the internal conflict. Or they had such systems imposed upon them.

Modern democracies have lasted between 30 and 300 years before collapsing. Few that have lasted longer than that are predominantly city-states (most notable case being San Marino - 1719 years) or else federal republics (Switzerland, 700 years). Monarchies? Look at the list:
Pandyan Empire - 1850 years
Byzantine Empire - 1123 years
Kingdom of Silla - 992 years
Ethiopian Empire - 837 years

Of course, part of the reason for this is that a lasting democracy is impossible in a multicultural / multiethnic society, but monoethnic states are usually small fish compared to multiethnic empires. Best setup in such conditions is likely an overarching empire with local democracies.

The government goes down in flames and is replaced by foreign occupation/different government?
Because that's what actually happened as well.
Even when a government had a benefit of not being forced to balance on razor's edge to maintain itself.

Every government has to balance itself on razor's edge to maintain its nature. Modern representative democracy easily becomes a plutocracy if one is not careful.