Quite the opposite, actually.
Generally, monarchs showed a
lot of concern for their subjects - far more than modern-day political and plutocratic elites do. Sure, monarchies did go to a war a lot during the Middle Ages - but so did democracies and republics. Roman Republic was far more expansionist and aggressive than either the Roman Kingdom or the Roman Empire. Athens in its democratic phase was a murderous imperial power, and Sparta - another murderous imperial power - was an oligarchy, not a democracy.
I never supported monarchy because I thought I would be a knight. But life as a peasant in Middle Ages was 1)
not as bad as generally portrayed, and 2) not worse under a monarchy than it was under any other political system. And regarding medieval monarchy specifically, unlike what is commonly believed, a monarch or a feudal lord
could not just murder a peasant, or take his possessions, or disown him (
even a serf)... the only exception to his rule was a feudal Russia, and even then only during the late stages of feudalism. The entire "serf with no rights" thing is a misconception (I have had people seriously argue that a serf is no better off than a slave... a load of crap). In reality, serfs could call onto their rights, and bring their lord out into the court (assuming they had the money to do it - but that is really no different from the current system - rich are always at an advantage). And the medieval judicial system was not that dissimilar to modern one. Hell, even in Roman Empire, a citizen could call onto the
Emperor to pass the judgement.
Medieval monarchy, or hell, even a modern monarchy, is
not a dictatorship. Dictatorship is fundamentally a failure of democracy, something that happens when people loose faith in the democratic political order and thus try and find quick and easy solutions. And sure, many monarchies may have started as dictatorships, but a traditional monarchy is a very old and very complex system, with numerous checks and balances and all kinds of restrictions. It is nowhere close to how people imagine a dictatorship - even an absolute monarch could not do things that dictators could and did.
And yes, being able to call political leaders onto account is a good idea... but one that never does work in reality. How often do you see democratic leaders actually answer for their crimes? Never, unless it is of a political benefit to the opposition. If it isn't, they can abuse their people (including the erstwhile voters) with little to no repercussions. Level of accountability you are asking for here does not exist, never has existed, almost certainly never will exist, and most likely
cannot exist. Meanwhile, fact is that you have a people who are a) getting elected and b) getting elected on a regular basis.
And both of these things are bad. Fact that politicians are being elected means that you are
assured that they will be psychopaths, because that is the kind of people that get elected - people who can lie, trick and bamboozle their way into power.
These are the voters in a democracy after literally every single election:
Meanwhile, the fact that politicians are being elected
on a regular basis ensures that they have no long-term considerations. No politician looks beyond the next elections, which is how you get destructive policies such as mass immigration and socialism: it is all about how to win the election, and if the country falls apart into the civil war immediately after the said politician's term, who the hell cares? It will be somebody else's problem by that time.
Neither of these is true in a monarchy. Yes, monarch
may be a psychopath - but that is not
a certainty the way it is with elected officials. And because monarch expects to rule for life - and usually expects to pass the kingdom to his children - means that he
will consider the long term. Sure, not all monarchs were successful at that - many were abject failures - but when that happened, it was a failure of the individual rather than a failure of the system.
Read this if you want some more insight into what exactly made me a monarchist:
Communists and other Leftists like to attack Austria-Hungary, and this is true in Croatia as well. Here, the myth of the Austria-Hungary as a “prison of the nations” still survives. But…
politicalreactionary.wordpress.com
And keep in mind, Monarchist Yugoslavia was probably
not as bad as I had presented it there.
Also, this:
Will never work. This is the ruling class we are talking about - and frankly,
partly due to nature of the elections, ruling class in a democracy is not actually the politicians. The actual ruling class? They feel
quite immortal and indisposable, and are correct in that because they have an ablative shield of "elected" pawns. In fact, I suspect the First World War was started to get rid of the monarchies