[Lorric]

Could that some reason be that european and asian countries benefit much more from an unstable middle east than from a stable one?

Nah, too far fetched. After all, what could they possibly have to gain from dealing with regimes with only one uncomplicated individual at the helm?

You say the people there aren't ready for democracy in the middle east. I say the politicians in Europe, China and America aren't.

So you trash Dragon for not presenting facts, and then you throw that out. That's interesting...

Nah, too far fetched.

Seems about right. After all, we've been benefitting from an unstable middle East for the last decade and more so much haven't we. Particularly Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran with their drive towards nuclear technology, and Syria, and we're really benefitting right now with the arrival of IS...

[Aardwolf]

Depends whether "we" is "America in general" or just a particular subset of Americans. Oil prices are still up, and (I think) mercs are still doing merc stuff.

[Lorric]

We is all. I don't know about China, but America and Europe all got sucked into this.

[666maslo666]

"middle eastern people are not ready for democracy" is not racism, not unless you somehow think they are genetically not ready, and I doubt Dragon meant that.

If you look at some opinion polls, you will see that often majorities of middle eastern people support things like killing apostates or stoning adulterers etc. Which is part of the ISIS ideology. If that is true, then they indeed dont deserve real democracy and are not ready for it. Nothing racist about it, its cultural.

[Dragon]

We is all. I don't know about China, but America and Europe all got sucked into this.

By "Europe" he likely meant Russia and it's allies/lackeys. China, too. This is indeed a significant factory, but not the primary one. Notice how all those "democracies" usually arose because of one or the other superpower deposed the local king. Undoubtedly, some are just not wanting peace, both in and out of Middle East. But this only highlights the importance of going with monarchies in that case. It's not that China and Russia are not ready for democracy, they're not ready for peace. A smart, strong monarch would have an easier time avoiding a war (even a popular one) than an elected government. Also, it seems that monarchies are somewhat less affected by corruption for whatever reason.

If you look at some opinion polls, you will see that often majorities of middle eastern people support things like killing apostates or stoning adulterers etc. Which is part of the ISIS ideology. If that is true, then they indeed dont deserve real democracy and are not ready for it. Nothing racist about it, its cultural.

You got it. In the Middle East, democracy often boils down to tyranny of the majority, and the majority can be remarkably cruel. Notice that human rights record of the Middle Eastern monarchies is decent, if not up to Western standards. On the other hand, it's downright bad in the republics I mentioned. Indeed, looks like people in the region want religious law and suppression of women (maybe because women don't speak up, having been suppressed all their life, and if they do, they're raped/killed...). Power to the people = power to Islam in far too many cases, just because people listen to "Islamic" authorities, even if they're talking out of their backside (there's hardly anything in Koran that could justify all those atrocities). Egypt is a notable exception (one that does look somewhat hopeful), but it's situation is shaky. Libya, despite also looking hopeful, is ravaged by war, so it's difficult to say whether it'll survive as a democracy.

The problem here is the "Perfect Solution fallacy". We want to install a government that would be peaceful, would have a spotless human rights record and wouldn't discriminate against women. I say, have a monarchy that would allow beheadings for the most serious crimes, tax non-Muslims, that would declare a woman's word in court to be worth 50% of that of a man, but that would not slaughter people en masse and that would actually control the country. As long as women are even allowed into court, as long as non-Muslims are not cut down where they stand and the tax isn't "all you have", and as long as beheadings are administered by an actual, more-or-less secular court with proper procedures in place, it would be a significant improvement. Once that is achieved, we might think about doing something about those issues (and indeed, if the procedures are good and done properly, beheading could stay. Beats lethal injection IMO). Chances are, they can be ironed out over time, and we'll have a fairly modern, rapidly developing country at the end of the century. Maybe even in new 50s, depending on the country.

[MP-Ryan]

Frankly, we shouldn't be wanting to anything, governance-wise, in the Middle East.

One of the major problems in the Middle East has been constant meddling by more powerful nations in an attempt to get ahead, often at the expense of the locals.  None of the various armed conflicts there would have been nearly as devastating without armaments coming in from those same more powerful nations that later sit back in horror and yell : "Holy ****, look at what they're doing to each other!"  Democracy among Western nations has been as successful as it is largely because it was entirely self-composed.  Nobody wandered into any of the Western powers and said "Hey, your system of governance is unfair, let's fix it for you."  Rather, they sorted out their own nations to varying states of democratic freedom because it worked.

The Middle East does have some democracies.  Pakistan claims to be one, and is at least tangentially associated with the Middle East.  It's also covered in rights-abuses, the odd coup, and more than it's share of corruption.  Israel is one, though it's got severe problems of its own.  Even Iran is, at least on paper, a democracy of a kind.  Part of the whole problem in that stretch of the world is Western powers thinking they can fix it.

So I think back to my opinion circa 2001:  Quit arming dictators.  Quit the ideological imposition of values.  Quit meddling for economic benefit.  When a terrorist organization rears its head and resorts to genocide or slaughter, we have bombs and special forces for that.  But that doesn't mean we stay after and try to fix the country.  That's up to the people who live there.  In 2001, NATO should have confined its Afghan operations to air and special forces.  Iraq was a mistake of epic proportions.  Syria is yet another case where specialized intervention could have been conducted, and ISIS screams out for a good old fashioned airstrike+special ops deployment to eliminate as much of their forces and materiel as possible.  But that's it.  Western powers should have abandoned the notion of fixing other nations politically in the 1950s, but it seems we have to learn this lesson over and over every couple of decades.

It's not that Middle Eastern people aren't ready for democracy.  It's that it's up to them to decide their governance systems.  Yes, we can use military power to try to fix military mistakes we've made that have local consequences, and to stop genocides and mass murder, but that doesn't mean we have some noble obligation to fix their entire country in a manner that the locals either don't support, or are incapable of maintaining without Western arms, money, and logistical support.  That's part of the reason that Iraq and Syria are such a cluster**** right now.

[Dragon]

Quitting might be a good idea. In fact, I mentioned it a few posts ago. My other arguments assumed GTFO isn't an option for whatever reason. Isolating the place, letting it "burn out" and stabilize on it's own, perhaps it'd be the best way. But there are some problems with that.

1. Superpowers started this all. Basically, it was their meddling that caused this mess, so perhaps, it's their responsibility to restore a stable, even if nondemocratic Middle East. Not what they're currently doing, but I'm proposing something like this. It was through Cold War-era machinations that Shah of Iran (a pretty decent ruler, all things considered) got replaced by the warmongering theocracy Iran is now. Similar things messed up Iraq and Syria. Though not Afghanistan or Pakistan. Their problems go waaay back to the colonial times. Either way, it's superpowers' fault. It seems right to try to fix it, the mistake they are making is also demanding drastic improvements the people are simply not ready for. They don't realize they're improvements and don't even want them. So what can you do? Well, I've outlined one idea of mine about that that. Let them come up with those ideas themselves.

2. Israel. It's the only "Western" country that can't just get out and forget about the place. Since I don't think moving it now would be viable, something needs to be done to ensure it doesn't get crushed, or, if left to it's own devices, doesn't continue to destabilize the region. It has much greater stakes in the conflict than any other civilized country. Status quo isn't good for it, so something will have to change, sooner or later. Peace with Gaza is one thing, but Hamas is hardly the only group that wants to see Israel gone.


I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to leave them alone. Perhaps it's the best our inept governments can pull off. They would never go through with what I'm proposing, few people can fathom that absolute, hereditary monarchy might actually be a good idea. They lack the guts to do what would be necessary to put those sultans on their thrones, not could they stomach installing and supporting a regime that they know to be much more primitive than a modern, Western democracy. Getting out and washing your hands is easier, not to mention requires significantly less competence. "Sorry, looks like we're doing no good. We're out, we can send you some cash after you stop fighting." doesn't seem exactly "proper" to me, but let's not fall for the perfect solution. It seems like the best they could realistically do, assuming it's even an option.

ISIS could be purged with the old "specops+airstrikes" combo, but a strong government would also be required to keep them from resurfacing as a guerilla, or even a very similar group with a different name. Unless they're killed off to a man, it's unlikely the idea will "die" completely, the place is so unstable that extremists have an easy time gaining support. For a permanent solution, there needs to be a strong, stable government in the area.

[Mars]

They don't realize they're improvements and don't even want them. So what can you do? Well, I've outlined one idea of mine about that that. Let them come up with those ideas themselves.

I don't think its a personal issue, I think that the political infrastructure for the kind of things that Western Governments want to inject into middle eastern states simply doesn't exist. It's the same reason why instituting a European style welfare state into the United States with no other political changes wouldn't work.

You make it sound like they're less intelligent than westerners.

[Dragon]

You make it sound like they're less intelligent than westerners.

Intelligent? Maybe not. But what we do know for a fact is that they are less educated, and the education they do have is all too often religiously biased. Intelligence alone can't overcome neither lack of education and especially not bad one. There might be no "natural", biological difference, but cultural, educational and income level ones are very much present. Israel is a good example. It's own Arab population is just as educated as in any Western country. Doesn't stop it from being discriminated against, but they're perfectly good Israeli citizens.

I don't think its a personal issue, I think that the political infrastructure for the kind of things that Western Governments want to inject into middle eastern states simply doesn't exist. It's the same reason why instituting a European style welfare state into the United States with no other political changes wouldn't work.

It's the case, too, but remember that there are personal reasons as well. They're not prepared to accept, for whatever reason, concepts like gender equality, religious freedom, etc. Any attempt to impose those would go against their beliefs. Islam is very deeply ingrained into peoples' minds, and that includes (like many other religions) a hefty dose of misogyny and lack of tolerance towards other religions. The basic assumption of a democracy is that people are equal, but Islam doesn't exactly allow that. A democracy out there, if it survived, would still be pretty bigoted and misogynistic. On top of that, the West insists on it's own "style" of democracy. In the future, there might be advanced, educated democracies in the region. But they will be different, "Mid-East-style" democracies. There's a multitude of reasons, both personal and political, why democracies in the region just don't seem to work.

[Herra Tohtori]

It would be a good idea to make a clear distinction between saying that "X people are not ready for democracy" and "the circumstances of the society are not ideal to support democratic governance".


There's a lot of reasons why democracies seem to fail faster than authoritarian regimes, most important one being that democracies are usually unwilling to use deadly force against their own citizens.


The reasons for both democratic and authoritarian regimes failing periodically in certain regions are the exact same:

-low standards of living
-low education
-regional instability driven by competing factions that loathe each other to varying extents


I would fully agree that any nation struggling with these problems is probably going to have problems with implementation of democracy.

Low standards of living usually correlate with apathy in voting. They also increase the support for extremism - either political ideologies or religious ideologies, take your pick. Extremes are generally bad for democracy because of the typical lack of respect they have towards anyone who thinks differently...

Low education is a problem because it allows people with good charisma and rhetoric abilities to sway them pretty much however they want. This applies to both secular and religiously motivated factions, although scaring ignorant people with supernatural nonsense is generally easier than scaring them with natural things (both are valid strategies for populists though).

The regional instability is connected to the two former facts, but mostly the result of population consisting of several demographics that in themselves are fairly homogenous, don't usually mix very much, and have a lot of prejudice in their interactions, at least on the political level.


What I'm saying is, until these problems are somewhat diminished, any government installed in these troubled regions will likely fall sooner or later, whether it's democratic or authoritarian, secular or religious. The people are the same anywhere. Any group of people affected by such crippling socio-cultural issues would be "not ready for democracy", as someone put it.

[Dragon]

An authoritarian government could, perhaps, survive long enough and be effective enough to bring those problems under control. Especially a hereditary monarchy, which has a fairly strong (to those people) argument of being "legitimate rulers" and a divine right to rule. Not to mention from what I've seen of them, they tend to be less corrupt. A dictatorial regime such as Qaddafi's was pretty stable, all things considered, but had an enormous corruption problem, Qaddafi himself was a bad ruler and got himself overthrown when he overdid his antics. Somehow, Oman or Kuwait were spared by the Arab Spring, and are doing well. This does depend on whether the monarch is any good, but notice that people whose ambition is grabbing power are usually not really suited for actually ruling anything. A monarch who is born into power, especially with proper upbringing, might have less chance of turning out a self-centered nutjob. Even if the dynasty in question was deposed some time ago, it has a chance of giving us a decent, intelligent ruler.

Also, it's not only about the fact that a democracies have trouble surviving in the region. Even if you do increase standards to living and start the process of secularizing education, you still have a population which is highly religious, easy to manipulate and bigoted accordingly to their religion. They are going to elect people who let them being bigoted and play along with religious authorities. That's what I also meant by "Not ready for democracy". I have a feeling that democracy in the region, even if it somehow stabilized, would have a great problem with minorities and women treatment. An authoritarian regime could attempt to mitigate this (within reason, of course), but the democratic one is bound by the majority's whims. I'm not sure if a democracy would have a better record than monarchy, all things considered.

Of course, it's true that any government in the area would face major troubles and have a good chance of failing. However, an authoritarian regime would, IMO, be better suited to handling those and somewhat less vulnerable. Even if it means using deadly force, so far it seems that not using it instantly puts you at a major disadvantage against many, many extremist groups around. Whatever kind of government is installed, it must be willing to use force, including deadly force, against such groups, of it's chances of survival are very, very slim. Hard to do in a democracy, so it's yet another reason why an authoritarian regime could be the only one that would last long enough to make a difference.

[Scotty]

An authoritarian government could, perhaps, survive long enough and be effective enough to bring those problems under control.

Are you deliberately ignoring 80% of recent history in the Middle East, or are you simply unaware?  Authoritarian governments in the area survive long enough, true, but they generally do so by treading all over the concept of "human rights" until someone tells them to ****-off with a big stick because they're causing more problems than they solve.

Let's take a look at the authoritarian regimes in the Middle East in the last 20 years or so, shall we?

Saddam Hussein, Iraq.  Killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and ruled Iraq with terror and force.
Ali Khamenei, Iran.  Executed tens of thousands of political dissidents, remains a hotbed for human rights abuses.
Bashar Al-Assad, Syria.  Pick up a ****ing newspaper.
Muammar Ghaddafi, Libya.  Financed and instigated multiple wars and rebellions in the region.  Killed hundreds of his own citizens.
Hosni Mubarak, Egypt.  Probably the least egregious entry on this list, and was still responsible for systematically suppressing basic human expression and severely punishing violator.s
Mohammed Morsi, Egypt.  Lasted for less than two years before violent protests forced him out of office.
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Tunisia.  Overthrown by (thankfully) civil protests after systematic oppression of human rights and poor economic conditions.
Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, Saudi Arabia.  This place is one of those places that's famous for its devotion to oppressive Sharia law.  That should tell you something, even if it's relatively 'stable'.
Abdullah II, Jordan.  Literally the only stable, human rights abiding authoritarian nation in the entire region.  The only one.  That should tell you something.

[Bobboau]

he didn't say it was likely, just possible

[Dragon]

An authoritarian government could, perhaps, survive long enough and be effective enough to bring those problems under control.

Are you deliberately ignoring 80% of recent history in the Middle East, or are you simply unaware?  Authoritarian governments in the area survive long enough, true, but they generally do so by treading all over the concept of "human rights" until someone tells them to ****-off with a big stick because they're causing more problems than they solve.

Let's take a look at the authoritarian regimes in the Middle East in the last 20 years or so, shall we?

Saddam Hussein, Iraq.  Killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and ruled Iraq with terror and force.
Ali Khamenei, Iran.  Executed tens of thousands of political dissidents, remains a hotbed for human rights abuses.
Bashar Al-Assad, Syria.  Pick up a ****ing newspaper.
Muammar Ghaddafi, Libya.  Financed and instigated multiple wars and rebellions in the region.  Killed hundreds of his own citizens.
Hosni Mubarak, Egypt.  Probably the least egregious entry on this list, and was still responsible for systematically suppressing basic human expression and severely punishing violator.s
Mohammed Morsi, Egypt.  Lasted for less than two years before violent protests forced him out of office.
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Tunisia.  Overthrown by (thankfully) civil protests after systematic oppression of human rights and poor economic conditions.
Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, Saudi Arabia.  This place is one of those places that's famous for its devotion to oppressive Sharia law.  That should tell you something, even if it's relatively 'stable'.
Abdullah II, Jordan.  Literally the only stable, human rights abiding authoritarian nation in the entire region.  The only one.  That should tell you something.

No. Read my previous post again. All of it, not just the first sentence. All but two of the people you listed are dictators. I was clearly advocating legitimate monarchs. Yes, Saudi Arabia is bigoted, Wahhabist hole and Abdullah bin Abdulaziz is an old goat who's living way too long for my liking. Still, compare this to all the people above him. Saudi Arabia is stable, rich and quite powerful. While it is rather oppressive, it seems that overall, status quo isn't that bad for Muslim men. This is more than you can say about the dictators, or about complete anarchy.

You're right about Abdullah II, he's a good ruler. But let's also not forget Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said, from Oman. His country is remarkably free and fairly rich. You also forgot Kuwaiti Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah. Kuwait has remarkable press freedom and is a fairly nice place to live. There's also the president of UAE, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan. In UAE, presidency traditionally goes to the Emir of Abu Dhabi, so that's also a monarchy. There's also Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, of Qatar, which is downright nice as far as the Middle East goes (well, thanks to his father, but still. He's been on the throne only since 2013 His father would count as well). That brings our total to 5 good authoritarian rulers, coincidentally all hereditary monarchs. And that's only the currently reigning ones, I could mention their fathers as well (since you included deposed tyrants), doubling the number. Even the old pervert Abdualziz is a better ruler than Morsi or Ghaddafi, and certainly better than what's happening in Syria. Also, I suspect Saudi Arabia might take a turn for the better once that old goat goes beneath the sand, depending on which Crown Prince will take the helm after that.

Also, notice how long Ghaddafi survived. He was a horrible ruler, dictator and all, but he managed to keep his position. Look at Iran, which, despite it's oppressiveness, is very stable and very strong, to the point of being one of the most dangerous countries out there. It becomes clear that if anything is going to survive as a government there, it's likely going to be authoritarian. A large part of my previous post dealt with why it's within everyone's best interests to have dynastic monarchs as those authoritarian rulers, instead of power-hungry tinpot dictators.

Oh, and one last thing. Libya and Tunisia are in Africa, not Middle East. There is geographic and cultural distance between them and, say, Syria. Especially in the latter case, Tunisia is nowhere near the Middle East. Libya is closer, but still distinct. Both are separated from the worst by a large swatch of desert and by Egypt. I'd be careful with using them as an example in a discussion about Middle East, some things about them still apply out there, some do not. Afghanistan and Pakistan likewise. They're in Asia and have some crucial differences, especially Pakistan (historically a part of India). Generally, when I talk about Middle East, I mean Arabian Peninsula and some immediate surroundings like Egypt and Turkey (I'm excluding Cyprus and Bahrain, since they're pretty detached form the events, even though they're usually counted as Middle East).

[Scotty]

Your point is predicated on authoritarian regimes solving problems.  All of them mentioned in this thread so far with the singular exception of Abdullah II of Jordan have caused far more problems than they ever solved.

I also want to draw close attention to this phrase:

While it is rather oppressive, it seems that overall, status quo isn't that bad for Muslim men.

Big ****ing deal.  Describing a situation that is beneficial for a minority of a region's residents and abhorrent for all others is not a good situation.

[The E]

No. Read my previous post again. All of it, not just the first sentence. All but two of the people you listed are dictators. I was clearly advocating legitimate monarchs.

You still seem to be under the mistaken impression that there's a difference between the two.

[karajorma]

How the hell would you get a monarch in a country which currently doesn't have a monarchy anyway?

[Scotty]

Divine right, of course.  How else would they manage to cleanse their respective countries of filthy Kurds Shiites Sunnis Jews Westerners problems?

[Dragon]

No. Read my previous post again. All of it, not just the first sentence. All but two of the people you listed are dictators. I was clearly advocating legitimate monarchs.

You still seem to be under the mistaken impression that there's a difference between the two.

There is. It's not a mistaken impression, it's a fact. They are different kinds of people, there's indeed a fundamental difference between the two. If you take a look at the monarchs and at dictators, you'll see that very clearly. The mentality of a rightful king and that of a dictator are very, very different.

Dictators ascend to power by force and by their own effort. They're people who carve power and enjoy bossing people around. Otherwise, they wouldn't want to be dictators. They also often have no idea about how to run a country, seldom being educated, intelligent people. Usually, they come from military background (it's easier to seize power that way), which means they rule the country like they would command a military unit. A recurring trend among dictators is also narcissism, forcing people worship their own person. This is likely what drives many of them into power in first place. A dictator can also be sociopathic, which makes it easier for him to rise to power (as he can manipulate people around him). Arguably a good trait for a ruler, but also a very dangerous one unless one dedicates himself completely to the well-being of the state. Due to the aforementioned narcissism, this doesn't happen very often. Dictators are not pragmatic, nor are they very concerned with well-being of their country. Of course, there are exceptions to those, but a dictator will exhibit at least some of those traits.

How do I know that? Well, people without those traits simply don't have a desire to rise to power in a way dictators do. To become a dictator, one must:
1. Want absolute power.
2. Manipulate people into supporting one's takeover, by whatever means necessary.
3. Execute the takeover, often violently, without regard for anything else.
4. Maintain absolute power at any and all costs, without regard for anyone else.
For a single person to do all this, a certain set of traits is needed. Anyone missing too many of them will either fail, be quickly deposed or not even attempt to become a dictator. Only a certain kind of person is capable of taking over in this manner, and holding onto it. Many of those traits are undesirable for a modern ruler. A dictator is always dangerous. A stupid one to his own people, an intelligent one to everyone else.

Monarchs, on the other hand, generally are rich. That means they can afford high education. Also, being raised in a royal family means that they have a different mindset than people who ascend to power. They don't seek power, because they already have it. As such, they're often (not always) remarkably free from the desire to abuse it. Notice how none of the monarchies I listed display signs of fanatic personality cults so common in dictatorial countries. There is still a certain level of this, but it's more "ritualized" and not as strongly enforced (much like in Britain, for example, a small degree of reverence for the monarch can be healthy). Also, royal families are generally intelligent, often because a country with a stupid king tended to get conquered in the past. It's not exactly an ironclad rule, and even an otherwise intelligent dynasty can produce idiots (this tends to do a lot of harm to the country), but even Abdulaziz isn't a complete moron, just an old, overtly religious pervert. Nonetheless, he managed to keep Saudi Arabia powerful and important, didn't get assassinated or overthrown, which is more than can be said for, say, Saddam Hussein. Even Arab Spring didn't hit Saudis that hard. This is not a coincidence. Not a single king or emir was overthrown during the protests. Not a single monarchy even had very significant unrest. Almost all dictatorships were hit and hit hard. Coincidence? I don't think so. There is a major difference between monarchs and dictators.

Big ****ing deal.  Describing a situation that is beneficial for a minority of a region's residents and abhorrent for all others is not a good situation.

First, "Muslim men" are about half of Saudi population. It's not a good situation, but it's a better one than one which is abhorrent for everyone, and for their neighbors as well. As you might have noticed, I'm not exactly fond of Abdulaziz. Still, he'd be a net improvement over chaos and war that rages on in Syria, for example. Saudi Arabia is stable and fairly secure, despite it's many flaws. Again, there is no perfect solution. If you had a choice between Assad and Abdulaziz, who would you chose?

[The E]

There is. It's not a mistaken impression, it's a fact. They are different kinds of people, there's indeed a fundamental difference between the two. If you take a look at the monarchs and at dictators, you'll see that very clearly. The mentality of a rightful king and that of a dictator are very, very different.

Dictators ascend to power by force and by their own effort.

So Monarchs are just handed power because of their good looks?

They're people who carve power and enjoy bossing people around.

Whereas Monarchs will despise every moment in which they are forced to exercise power?

Otherwise, they wouldn't want to be dictators. They also often have no idea about how to run a country, seldom being educated, intelligent people.

Whereas Monarchs are paragons of higher education?

Usually, they come from military background (it's easier to seize power that way), which means they rule the country like they would command a military unit.

Last I checked, military service is still more or less required in some of the more successful monarchies around.

A recurring trend among dictators is also narcissism, forcing people worship their own person.

And Monarchs are completely immune to the adoration of the masses all of a sudden?

This is likely what drives many of them into power in first place. A dictator can also be sociopathic, which makes it easier for him to rise to power (as he can manipulate people around him).

Something that no monarch in history has ever done, I'm sure.

Arguably a good trait for a ruler, but also a very dangerous one unless one dedicates himself completely to the well-being of the state. Due to the aforementioned narcissism, this doesn't happen very often. Dictators are not pragmatic, nor are they very concerned with well-being of their country. Of course, there are exceptions to those, but a dictator will exhibit at least some of those traits.

How do I know that? Well, people without those traits simply don't have a desire to rise to power in a way dictators do. To become a dictator, one must:
1. Want absolute power.
2. Manipulate people into supporting one's takeover, by whatever means necessary.
3. Execute the takeover, often violently, without regard for anything else.
4. Maintain absolute power at any and all costs, without regard for anyone else.
For a single person to do all this, a certain set of traits is needed. Anyone missing too many of them will either fail, be quickly deposed or not even attempt to become a dictator. Only a certain kind of person is capable of taking over in this manner, and holding onto it. Many of those traits are undesirable for a modern ruler. A dictator is always dangerous. A stupid one to his own people, an intelligent one to everyone else.

So what you're telling me here is that the difference between a Monarch and a Dictator is that the Monarch is the child of a Dictator. Not that there is anything intrinsically different.

Monarchs, on the other hand, generally are rich.

Yes, owning countries generally does imply a certain amount of affluence.

That means they can afford high education. Also, being raised in a royal family means that they have a different mindset than people who ascend to power.

Yes. Usually one that is much worse (i. e. no experience of hardship, no experience in dealing with common folk).

They don't seek power, because they already have it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a war a couple decades ago that got started because one monarch sought more power? You know, a little, hardly remarkable incident called WORLD WAR ONE?

As such, they're often (not always) remarkably free from the desire to abuse it. Notice how none of the monarchies I listed display signs of fanatic personality cults so common in dictatorial countries.

What is North Korea, then? By your own definition, it is a monarchy.

There is still a certain level of this, but it's more "ritualized" and not as strongly enforced (much like in Britain, for example, a small degree of reverence for the monarch can be healthy).

Hmmm, remind me, was that law in Thailand that put extreme punishments for disparaging the royals ever repealed?

Also, royal families are generally intelligent, often because a country with a stupid king tended to get conquered in the past.

Really? Please cite comparative studies.

It's not exactly an ironclad rule, and even an otherwise intelligent dynasty can produce idiots (this tends to do a lot of harm to the country), but even Abdulaziz isn't a complete moron, just an old, overtly religious pervert. Nonetheless, he managed to keep Saudi Arabia powerful and important, didn't get assassinated or overthrown, which is more than can be said for, say, Saddam Hussein. Even Arab Spring didn't hit Saudis that hard. This is not a coincidence. Not a single king or emir was overthrown during the protests. Not a single monarchy even had very significant unrest. Almost all dictatorships were hit and hit hard. Coincidence? I don't think so. There is a major difference between monarchs and dictators.

Yes, there is. One is an autocratic dictator who rose to power out of their own means, the other is an autocratic dictator who has had power handed to him from his parents. Both are autocratic Dictators.