28

The best known monarchy is no doubt the various Commonwealth realms ruled over by Queen Elizabeth. However, she is generally seen as mostly a figurehead, with elected officials being the ones that do the actual ruling.

I'm interested in monarchies where a king or queen has real power. That would include any absolute monarchy, but I'm also including a constitutional monarchy if the restrictions set upon the monarch by such a constitution are limited and the monarch still has a wide amount of power and freedom to exercise said power. If the monarch doesn't have at least as much power as the president has in the USA then I wouldn't consider them a 'real' monarch, at least for the sake of this question.

I realize 'biggest' is a rather imprecise term as well, but I want to leave that open to interpretation. You can use physical size, population, GDP, per capital GDP etc, all I'm interested in is seeing how well some of the more successful modern-day monarchies are doing compared to more modern forms of government.

Glorfindel
  • 3,212
  • 3
  • 24
  • 42
dsollen
  • 9,440
  • 6
  • 40
  • 61
  • 26
    "f the monarch doesn't have at least as much power as President has in the USA then I wouldn't consider them a 'real' monarch, " Most president don't have that much power – CharybdeBE Mar 31 '22 at 07:24
  • 3
    @CharybdeBE Critically though, US presidents are CiC and can unilaterally block legislation. If a monarch can't refuse consent to a law, that seems like a pretty decent sniff test to me. – Azor Ahai -him- Mar 31 '22 at 15:37
  • 1
    @CharybdeBE That's sort of the point. If you can't even manage a president's level of power your hardly powerful enough to brag you are the primary ruler of a land. – dsollen Mar 31 '22 at 15:49
  • @dsollen by that definition, though, very few lands have rulers. Is that intended? – Tim Mar 31 '22 at 22:06
  • The queen of England can dissolve parliament has a direct ear to the PM and is entitled to make her opinion on government issues made clear to the ruling party. Although the exact political power she has is unclear mainly because she chooses not to exercise any. Categorizing the queen of England as merely a figurehead is not accurate. – Neil Meyer Apr 01 '22 at 16:04
  • 4
    I would consider the queen of England to be a literal living constitution. A failsafe just in case some political party gets elected and completely looses the plot. – Neil Meyer Apr 01 '22 at 16:20
  • 3
    @NeilMeyer if the paper doesn't match reality, is the paper wrong, or the reality? Any unconventional and bad orders from the queen will probably be ignored... and convert the UK to a republic. – Reasonably Against Genocide Apr 01 '22 at 17:57
  • 1
    @user253751 being able to dissolve parliament is still having political power. Choosing not to use it does not mean she does not have it – Neil Meyer Apr 01 '22 at 18:02
  • 2
    @NeilMeyer But only in cases where parliament should be dissolved. If she dissolves parliament in a situation where it should not be, it de-facto triggers One-Way Assured Destruction and the UK reverts to a republic. – Reasonably Against Genocide Apr 01 '22 at 21:38
  • 3
    @NeilMeyer "Figure head" in this case is shorthand, and I read the question to be clarifying that a monarch with actual political power comparable to that of the current Queen Elizabeth in another political system, even if that is not quite "zero" and may be expanded in a constitutional crisis or ambiguity, doesn't count for purposes of this question. in contrast, the powers that King George III had during the American Revolution probably would qualify. – ohwilleke Apr 01 '22 at 21:53
  • Queen Elizabeth II mas a steel fist within a very very very thick velvet glove. But the steel fist is awesome mighty when needs must. The Prime Minister consults with the queen on a regular basis. This may be seen as not a means by which power is exercised - and this is no doubt true almost without exception. If an exception arose the Prime Minister would very likely NOT 'just ignore' the queens expressed desire. What would happen is well hidden. to we mere mortals. – Russell McMahon Apr 02 '22 at 10:38
  • Queen Elizabeth drafts every piece of legislation that could possibly affect the Royal Family- more powerful than the US President so as far as the UK- she is very powerful. – user2617804 Apr 03 '22 at 02:21

1 Answers1

72

By almost any measure, Saudi Arabia takes the prize.

Most of the absolute monarchies or even monarchies where the monarchy has more than symbolic power outside a rare constitutional crisis are in the Middle East and North Africa (Brunei and a few African micro-states would be the other main exceptions). Specifically:

the world’s current absolute monarchies are Brunei, Eswatini [f.k.a. Swaziland], Oman, Saudi Arabia, Vatican City, and the seven territories of the United Arab Emirates

While not strictly an absolute monarchy, Morocco has a king with real power, as do Jordan, Kuwait, and Bahrain.

Saudi Arabia is a larger country by any measure, than any of the others.

The Roman Catholic church holds sway over more than 1 billion people, but not in the sense that the question implies. It is an absolute monarchy without secular competition over only a few thousand priests and lay religious officials in tiny Vatican City, and its absolute monarchy's succession is not hereditary.

North Korea is arguably one of the world's largest absolute monarchies but is not formally organized in that manner, even though its rulership has passed from father to son twice and the ruler of North Korea has practical power comparable to an absolute monarch.

Even then, however, Saudi Arabia probably edges out North Korean in terms of country size by most measures.

Saudi Arabia has 34.8 million people, 800,000 square miles, and a GDP of $1.6 trillion ($46,762 per capita) and many international allies. North Korea has 25.8 million people, 46,540 square miles, and a GDP that is not well estimated, but is almost surely less per capita and overall than Saudi Arabia. North Korea is highly isolated internationally.

Both North Korea and Saudi Arabia have moderately powerful military forces. North Korea has nuclear missiles (experimental), a large navy, and a high level of mobilization, but low-technology, out-of-date equipment, and poor training for its troops. Saudi Arabia has a smaller military without nuclear weapons, but what it has is state of the art.

I'm interested in is seeing how well some of the more successful modern-day monarchies are doing compared to more modern forms of government.

It is worth noting that the most recent wave of revolutions against non-democratic regimes in the Middle East and North Africa, sometimes called Arab Spring, was more successful in the case of non-monarchies (e.g. Libya and Syria) than in the case of monarchies in the region.

frIT
  • 103
  • 1
ohwilleke
  • 79,130
  • 11
  • 224
  • 303
  • 2
    I wouldn't exclude the DPRK. But size still puts them on second place. – o.m. Mar 31 '22 at 04:32
  • 21
    The Kingdom of Thailand would be another candidate. It has 70 million people, i.e. double that of Saudi Arabia, although less area and a lower overall GDP. So it really depends on the chosen metric. – R.K. Mar 31 '22 at 07:41
  • 5
    I'd say North Korea is a dictatorship, but not a monarchy. The distinction is that Kim's position can be potentially taken over by someone who amasses more political power. It's more that two father-to-son transitions have been successful. – Therac Mar 31 '22 at 08:45
  • 3
    I would question that Libya and Syria had more successful revolutions than those against the arab monarchies. The revolutionaries were after more representation and better living standards. They achieved constitutional reforms in Jordan, Morocco, and Oman and more public spending in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar. No one is better off in Syria and few are in Libya. – User65535 Mar 31 '22 at 10:29
  • 12
    @ZOMVID-21 If it quacks like a duck... – Dan M. Mar 31 '22 at 12:16
  • 1
    @DanM. It's about defining monarchy - I'd say the main distinction of one is power being derived from a publicly-legitimate dynastic principle. DPRK is more of a sham socialist democracy. Kim's power was formally granted by the Politburo, not by right of succession. Although it can be considered to have some properties of a monarchy. – Therac Mar 31 '22 at 12:31
  • 3
    @ZOMVID-21 not all Monarchies are dynasty-based ones and North Korea already has a strong cult of personality centered around the Kim family. So I'd say, it's dynastic nature is already publicly-legitimate (even if not enshrined into laws). But yeah, it's mostly just formal vs. actual distinction. – Dan M. Mar 31 '22 at 12:42
  • 14
    @R.K. Thailand's monarchy is pretty clearly a constitutional monarchy. In 1932 "the people were granted a constitution, ending 150 years of absolute Chakri rule. From then on the role of the monarch was relegated to that of a symbolic head of state. His powers from then on were exercised by a prime minister and the national assembly." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Thailand – ohwilleke Mar 31 '22 at 12:56
  • 2
    @User65535 The fact that people were better off in the monarchies somewhat proves the point.The non-monarchy dictatorships had civil wars which as you note left everyone worse off. The monarchs, perhaps because they were more secure and could take a longer term view could cut deals that made their countries better off in the long run. – ohwilleke Mar 31 '22 at 13:00
  • People have joked that the USA at times resembles a hereditary monarchy, e.g. when George W Bush became president and his brother was doing well, or when Hillary Clinton was standing for election, and maybe a junior Trump has ambitions. If you class North Korea as a monarchy, where do you stop? – Stuart F Mar 31 '22 at 13:42
  • 3
    @ohwilleke The question pretty clearly included Constitutional Monarchies. For the actual influence of the king beyond mere symbolism on current politics and the divisiveness of said influence see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932022_Thai_protests – R.K. Mar 31 '22 at 13:50
  • 1
    If you mention Morocco then you might also want to mention Liechtenstein, which is another micro-nation where the monarch has considerable political power. – Philipp Mar 31 '22 at 14:27
  • 1
    @Philipp Fair. It defied long term trends and increased the Prince's power in 2003 and again once after that. It is indeed a micro-state, however, with just under 39,000 people and 608 square miles of land, although at $98K per capita GDP, an affluent one. I wouldn't consider it very comparable to Morocco, however, which is a poor, ordinary sized country not nearly so constrained by international arrangements in a very different political tradition. – ohwilleke Mar 31 '22 at 15:10
  • 2
    @ohwilleke Sorry, my bad. I confused Morocco with Monaco, which is also a micro-state with a strong monarchy. – Philipp Mar 31 '22 at 15:26
  • The Catholic Church is more of an Oligarchy. The College of Cardinals has the power to decide the leader, and it appears to force one to step down if need be. Communist states with their Politboros and (arguably) Iran also use a model like this. – T.E.D. Mar 31 '22 at 17:16
  • 3
    @StuartF You stop between a democracy that shows some signs of oligarchy-- Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Obama and then either Clinton or Bush, 4 to 8 years a piece, is problematic, but far from a monarchy--and a system run by a man for life and then his son. – prosfilaes Mar 31 '22 at 19:00
  • 4
    Why would the Vatican be considered a Monarchy if its succession is not hereditary? Aren't hereditary-successive monarchies what people think of when they hear the word 'Monarchy'? Isn't it more of a theocracy instead of a Monarchy? Not that they are mutually exclusive or anything. Good answer, by the way. – Mark Rogers Apr 01 '22 at 13:13
  • 1
    I don't see how the Vatican's is not just a democracy with an extremely restricted pool of voters and unconventional voter requirements. – Neil Meyer Apr 01 '22 at 16:13
  • 2
    @R.K. The Thai King does not have has much power as the U.S. President (which is the standard in the question). The active exercise of the Thai King in some recent constitutional crisis situations in Thailand is typical the the residuary powers of a constitutional monarch whose authority is predominantly symbolic. – ohwilleke Apr 01 '22 at 20:43
  • 2
    Technically, Vatican City is a Theocracy, not a monarchy. And Catholicism is a religious denomination, not a nation-state, so the terms monarchy or republic (which it is closer too) don’t really apply. – RBarryYoung Apr 01 '22 at 21:35
  • 2
    @RBarryYoung Monarchy is defined in multiple ways. Vatican City is a sovereign country, even though the religious denomination itself is not, and in Vatican City, the Pope has all powers of an absolute monarch and is not appointed by the people of Vatican City or subject to removal for any reason other than death or resignation. Many political scientists find that that suffices to make it a monarchy even though it is not hereditary. Similarly, the first monarch in any royal dynasty was not a hereditary monarch even if that person in a monarch. Arguably even an elected king is a monarch. – ohwilleke Apr 01 '22 at 21:49
  • “All powers of an absolute monarch” does not make someone a monarch. That just makes them an absolute ruler, but the rulers of republics and/or theocracies are not “monarchs”. And monarchies are states where state rulership is inherited. You might be able to claim that Vatican City was a republic since the ruler is elected, but it in no way qualifies as a monarchy. – RBarryYoung Apr 01 '22 at 21:54
  • 4
    @RBarryYoung Your restrictive definition of monarchy is not universally shared. See, e.g., https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-vatican which states "Vatican City is governed as an absolute monarchy with the pope at its head." and "The politics of Vatican City take place in a framework of a theocratic absolute elective monarchy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Vatican_City and https://royalcentral.co.uk/misc/vatican-city-the-worlds-smallest-state-and-monarchy-138765/ "Pope Francis is the only leader in Europe that is an absolute monarch." – ohwilleke Apr 01 '22 at 22:01
  • 6
    @MarkRogers There are hereditary monarchies and there are elective monarchies. One key difference between a president and an elective monarch is that presidents have a limited term after which there is another election, while a monarch is usually elected for life. – Philipp Apr 01 '22 at 22:48
  • 1
    @ZOMVID-21 " The distinction is that Kim's position can be potentially taken over by someone who amasses more political power." That is precisely what happened to 3 English monarchs, Richard II, Henry VI, and Richard III. Subsequently Politburo (sorry that should read Parliament) passed legislation legitimizing the transfer of power, and also the purge of the "traitors" who has supported the old regime. KIm is a monarch, in the sense of one person who rules a state. – Simon Crase Apr 02 '22 at 18:35