Voting in fascists was never a good idea, but... well, what makes your alternative so much better? You may have morons leading the charge in democracies, but ultimately the people that make those bad decisions tend not to stick around.
Not really. You'll notice that as long as they can find someone to blame, they can and will stick around. Polish government is an example, the core members are pretty much the same since the 90s, with occasional swapping of the seats. Also, what's your guarantee that the replacement isn't just as bad as the previous guys? Or worse, for that matter (which seems to be the trend lately)? Also, unless we train politicians from birth to do their job (to their credit, the US seems to have something of that sort in place, at least), they'd have a hard time measuring up to
good monarchs. Which, if you look through history, actually comprised the majority of kings and queens. Clueless and weak royals were an exception, not the rule, even when primogeniture was in place (today we have better systems for picking who gets the throne). Not to mention fascism and totalitarianism were unheard of back then, which certainly was a plus.
Even WWI was not inherently a problem with monarchies, but with the way international diplomacy worked at the time. There was no such thing as coordinated diplomatic effort, it was every country for itself in an age in which world was starting to become more and more intertwined. If they had bodies like UN this wouldn't have happened (indeed, the idea of the UN is more or less a direct result of WWI). And the examples of genocides that happened under monarchs are rather wimpy compared to what post-WWII attempts at democracy have resulted with. Indeed, no monarchy (unless we count North Korea, I suppose) ever had an industrialized apparatus designed to exterminate its own people, something that sprung up in
two places at once in just about 30 years of kicking the monarchs out. And it looks like we're heading that way
again. Even the Ottoman empire, which largely deserved what happened to it, was better than most countries (or what passes for countries, anyway) occupying that space now. Turkey, Iran, Jordan and Armenia are just about the only ones which can claim to have improved over the Ottomans (though a few others managed not to get much worse, to their credit...).
Britain may yet reverse its moronic decision, but I wouldn't bet my money on it. Britain is very split on the issue, which means that pendulum might be easily swayed back and forth with emotional arguments only. There's still a chance, of course, but it's not looking good. Remember, the same morons who voted in the referendum will have a say in every next decision about it, or at the very least in who gets to make those decisions.
I think it is but another core principle of democracy is that the people have the right to screw themselves over - and I think that is far better then being screwed over by someone they did not want
You're missing one important thing. People are not screwing
themselves over. Nearly 52% of them is screwing
everyone over. This is the problem. I would be all for democracy if the voting result only applied to those who voted such - everyone would get exactly what they ask for. The problem is that a bunch of gibbering idiots get to force their delusions upon everyone else. I could live with a smart, educated ruler making the decisions, even if I didn't have any say in them (he's probably better fit to make them than me, anyway). With politicians, there's no guarantee that they have the proper education (we had historians, a crystallographist and, in one notable case, a shipyard electrician), they only thing they are certain to have are charisma and self-advertising skills.
