Is a monarchy in accordance with the principles of democracy, characterized by free elections, majority decisions, adopted in a parliament elected by the people, equality before the law and universal human rights?

Immediately the answer must be no, for the monarchy, implies that someone from birth is destined to be the head of state, and to the members of a particular family are born to have privileges and are above the law. All of which goes against the very democratic core.

Yes, it will be of the and to said, to Denmark, because it is a monarchy, so in the group with a number of countries, we are usually loath to be compared with, for example, Saudi Arabia.

however, This is only true at an immediate and formalistic consideration. You could with the same right assert that Denmark, if the republic were introduced here, would come in the group with a number of other countries, we should have us like you to meet to be put in the crib with, such as Syria, Cuba, north Korea, Russia, China, or – to take some of the regimes that no longer exist – nazi Germany and Chile under the dictator Pinochet.

For it is namely to focus on the label rather than the real content on the outer appearance rather than the inner reality. A country’s form of government depends on much more than whether the head of state is a hereditary monarch or a president.

Shown we do not like to be compared with Saudi Arabia, but like with the modern monarchies such as Sweden and Norway.

It is also no ønskeposition to be in a group with the aforementioned republics, but on the other hand republics like Finland or Iceland probably be some, you as a dane have nothing against one’s country will be made together with.

Democracy and citizenship is therefore not a question of monarchy or republic.

There is monarchies, where such goods, to a very large extent been implemented, and there are republics, where the population is wholly or partly deprived of these goods. And vice-versa.

When Denmark has a monarchy as form of government, but is moreover a well-functioning democracy, so it has historical reasons. Was previously the monarchy an almost monopolistic form of government in Europe. It is no longer.

Many european monarchies have been replaced by republics. When it has not happened in Denmark, it is because the monarchy here has managed to keep up with the times and adapt to the development of society. In countries where monarkerne not managed it or even fought the development in the direction of democracy, was the monarchies more or less brutally swept aside – for example, France in 1792 and 1870, Germany 1918, Italy in 1946, Greece in 1975.

the Monarchy is thus in itself is neither conducive or an obstacle to democracy, it all depends on the historical context and the societal circumstances. For example, king Constantine not against ‘oberstkuppet’ in Greece in 1967, while his brother-in-law, king Juan Carlos, with his resolute attitude for democracy had dissolved a military coup attempt in Spain in 1981.

Michael Bregnsbo

Michael Bregnsbo is an associate professor of history at the University of Southern denmark and has, among other things, concerned with the royal history, and has written several books on the royal family.