Depends on the kind of monarchy and the kind of republic. A dictatorship could be placed in a republic and a great parlamentarism could exist in a monarchy. Although I don't thing a king or a queen who inherited the throne can govern democratically been a representative of the country administration. Why? Because people in this system people shall not choose the executive power.

^ "Although I don't thing a king or a queen who inherited the throne can govern democratically been a representative of the country administration. Why? Because people in this system people shall not choose the executive power.". Exactly, and that is the contradiction. In my opinion a monarchy is always short of democratic.

Monarchy and Democracy seem to be two forms of government in a State. - the 1st, by a single ruler, based on family lineage (whatever be its origin - divine or earthly - the 2nd, settled on a popular basis, generally through a vote. Monarchies have been overthrown and replaced by democratic governments.

However in contemporary history, the reality seems to evidence some contradictory effects on this issue: formal monarchies that are democratic in governmental procedure ( Great Britain, Sweden) and some so-called democracies that were dictatorial ( Franquist Spain; Salazarist Portugal) or are dictatorial (Zimbabwe) and democracies that adopt monarchic ancestry or procedure (Siria, Angola).

So, I must conclude that the meaning behind a governmental procedure does not depend on how we classify or title a country, as far as its FORM of government is concerned. What matters is how they BEHAVE. Some Presidents act as if they are kings, adopting an unipersonal form of government or adopting policies only compatible with autocratic rule. However we find monarchies that continue to be one man's rule (Borneu).

So in accordance with above said examples, it seems however that monarchy is a forlorn system of government, there will not be no new monarchies. The majority of existing Monarchies simply represent a traditional form of national unity and will indue course of time come to and end simply by mingling with the common man as some already are. Tensions may only occur if the monarchic defenders push or force their persistence.

can we conclude that although they may be democratic countries which are kingdoms, but nevertheless Monarchy and Democracy have a conflicting relationship?

monarchy is not a democratic form of government. The political power is concentrated in monarchy and the mode of ascending power fall short of democratic tenets. The tendency for monarchy to become despotic, particularly, absolute monarchy, is very high. so, this is in sharp contradiction to the concept of democracy that presupposes competition, popular participation and the likes.

Agree. Even if the monarch has no political power he gets a royal salary and does not need to pay taxes. His properties are simply gained by force and confiscation, and the fact that monarchy is hereditary makes it in-egalitarian and contradictory to democratic principles.

Do you really consider UK a country with solid democratic tradition? And isn't constitutionalism not the same as weakening the monarchy and democratizing the politics?

Monarchy is compatible with democracy when 50% + 1 of the citizens elect a dictator perpetuus. Caesar and Napoleon might make the cut. Hitler not quite; although his party was the largest in the Reichstag in 1932-33, and deliberately obstructionist, it was not the majority. My book The End of Kings (2nd ed., 2000) is on the history of republican opposition to one-person rule.

basically I see from the answers that either Monarchy isn't democratic, but democratic movements curb the power of monarchy and 2 Another line of reasoning (of William) is that a monarch or dictator is democratic if people have elected him!+ (?) I cannot agree completely with the second line of thinking. We can only say that t

he dictator is elected democratically but it isn't the same as democratic. Its nature is not democratic. The very logic of monarchy/dictatorship are based on inequality between humans while democracy's logic is based on human equality

yes I meant mass democracy. But doesn't constitutional monarchy mean restricted monarchy? It is restricted and weakened in order to be compatible with democracy. It is like removing the poison from a snake to make it less dangerous. But a poisonous snake remains a poisonous creature in nature!