Was the Roman Empire a monarchy or a dictatorship?

[Dr Strangelove]

OK, so there were multiple concerted attempts to establish dynastic rule in Rome, but the periods of internecine strife inbetween dynasties eventually destroyed the empire.

[Kuciwalker]

[Nylan-Nolan]

I wouldn't call it a monarchy

does anyone remember the play Julius Caesar? A major theme is making sure he DOESN'T become king

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


in contemporary English not every one man dictatorship is a monarchy. Saudi Arabia IS a monarchy, but say Libya is not. There are two differences - one is hereditary status, the other is ceremonial surrounding the ruler. North Korea today is (in practice) hereditary. But has no ceremony. Central African Empire had monarchical ceremony, but was never passed on. Both are "grey areas"

Lots of ceremony in N. Korea.





Does the fact he doesn't wear puffy shirts and powdered wigs make a difference?

[Nubclear]

I'm not sure if Kim Jong-Il claims authority to rule on the basis that he is the head of the Worker's Party of Korea or because he was "elected" to the position of Chairman of the National Defence Commission by the Supreme People's Assembly. I'm not familiar as to the constitutional law of North Korea, especially since North Korea doesn't abide by its own law anyway.

But regardless, it would seem to make his dictatorship distinct from a monarchy in that he isn't claiming authority from either God or "majesty" but instead from either the Supreme People's Assembly or the Worker's Party of Korea.

[Nubclear]

From the North Korean constitution:

Article 4. The sovereignty of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea resides in the workers, peasants, working intellectuals and all other working people. The working people exercise power through their representative organs―the Supreme People’s Assembly and local People’s Assemblies at all levels.

Thus, I'm willing to bet he claims authority from being elected by the SPA. Except that:

Article 106. The Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly is the highest organ of State power when the Supreme People’s Assembly is not in session.

zomfg! The person who should technically be in charge of the "highest organ of state power" should be....Kim Yong-nam!

But wait...

Article 11. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea shall conduct all activities under the leadership of the Workers’ Party of Korea.

I suppose that, since the WPK is not an organ of the state (?) but something that exists outside of it (like the Papacy) by the North Korean constitution Kom Jong-Il would derive his authority as head of the WPK.

Wow! If Article 11 wasn't there, Kim Jong-Il would be required to give up power!

[Nubclear]

Wait though: While it is said that North Korea must conduct its activites under the leadership of the WPK, the constitution clearly states that sovereignty rests with the people, through their "elected" representatives in the SPA.
Thus it would seem that, in order to derive authority to rule, one would have to be elected to the highest offices of state by the people, and that person would be Kim Yong-nam.

Kim Jong-il is just some shrill from the WPK and while his "leadership" is needed in all activities, he isn't the head of the North Korean state in any sense. As well, because the SPA/Presidium of the SPA is the highest state authority....it would seem that Kim Yong-nam should be the leader.

So what happens, constitutionally, if the head of the WPK, the SPA, and the people all say something different? The Constitution seems painfully ambiguous

[Nubclear]

I guess nothing kills a discussion faster than North Korean constitutional law