The Highest and Lowest

anyway, How can this idea of a Monarch that is the best system jibe with reality lacking an unambiguous 'seal of approval' from God? Let me rephrase? This seems like a sort of religious right position (maybe I'm totally wrong) So, would anyone toss away democracy in favor of a monarch? How can this notion not be "largely ideal" when it hinges upon the character of a single person? I'm not sure if I'm making this clear. I'm trying to understand how this can be considered the highest state of governance in a practical, non-ideal world. just asking... ~WitzHere is how I understand Malrubius' teaching: The list of governments can be viewed as a circle where Monarchy is both the highest form of government and the lowest.Monarchy is highest when the monarch is good, it is lowest when the monarch is bad. Monarchy derives its character from the character of the monarch.This does mesh well with a "religious right" viewpoint, as you noted. A monarch appointed by the Divine would be a definitely good monarch.To my mind, a society ruled by an unselfish monarch who cares for the interest of his subjects has a lot of advantages over a democracy where politicians with unsavory motives pit one segment of the populace against another.

~WitzHere is how I understand Malrubius' teaching: The list of governments can be viewed as a circle where Monarchy is both the highest form of government and the lowest.Monarchy is highest when the monarch is good, it is lowest when the monarch is bad. Monarchy derives its character from the character of the monarch.This does mesh well with a "religious right" viewpoint, as you noted. A monarch appointed by the Divine would be a definitely good monarch.