And why is it better for the aristocracy to maintain power instead of the bourgeoisie?`
It is not better. Both should have their share of influence.
And what stops a monarch from doing the same thing when their popularity wanes? It hasn't stopped them before.
Ideally, opposition from other groups, as I said before. In general, of course it can happen, but dictators have more reasons to do so overall.
Here in Greece we have families running the two major political parties that have been trained over generations to rule, what makes you think that this is any better or worse than a monarchy? What makes the ratio of hits-to-misses greater in a monarchical system?
I am unfamiliar with your exact situation.
Hogwash, monarchies have relied on brute force since monarchies were established. What do you thinks the system of knighthood was all about?
Every government relies on force to some extent. I meant to say that it will not be necessary in certain situations, where a ruler without such support would be forced to do so.
It just happens that we have direct and recent instances of dictators with modern means at their disposal. If the same means were available to the Romanovs or Emperor Napoleon III (who was a president and monarch of France) or the House of Orlean, etc... I am sure the track record would have been rather different.
Well, we do have monarchies in modern era, quite a lot actually. Here is the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy#C ... monarchies
And there were plenty of despotic usurpers in the past.
You see all the qualities you project onto the monarchy or their republican rivals are not political weaknesses and excesses but human. As soon as you realise that, then we can have a rational and intelligent conversation about the pros and cons, until then you are basically coming across as an apologist.
Well, that's part of my position, actually. The way I see it, as long as we have selfish, confused and short-sighted people ruling selfish, confused and short-sighted people, any laws, initiatives, political reforms and such are basically damage control. Modern states can be pretty good at damage control, but I feel it is not enough. If we want positive changes, we need to work with individual qualities of the people, improve them somehow. Improving the whole population is unrealistic, so I feel it should start with rulers, and constitutional monarchy seems to be the most fitting system for that. Idealistic, I know. I don't expect this to actually happen.
I regret that I look like an apologist. Actually, I am rather apathetic on the whole politics thing, and view this more like a curious thought experiment than anything else. I do have a tendency to put my opinions rather strongly (not helped by the fact that English is not my native language), so don't take it as my all-important political credo or anything