Constitutional monarchies provide a unique blend of tradition and authority which gives them a kind of political legitimacy that most republics in Africa lack. That legitimacy can then act as a stabilizing force, which is something most African countries desperately need.

Examples:

First, let’s look at some facts. Some of the most stable and prosperous countries in the world are constitutional monarchies such as the Scandinavian countries, the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium and Japan. But let’s not focus too much on Western examples.

Let’s look at North Africa. Morocco is by far the most stable state in North Africa and it is also the only monarchy in the region. It hasn’t experienced civil war or major state collapse like some of its neighbours.

Now let’s look at the Levant and the Middle East. Iraq, Lebanon and Syria are all deeply unstable states that have experienced wars, coups, sectarian conflict and regime collapses. Jordan however is considered one of the most consistently stable Arab countries in the region and, lo and behold, it is also the only monarchy in the Levant. What makes this even more interesting is that Jordan is just as artificial of a construction as Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. On top of that, it lacks major natural resources and even sea access, yet it has remained relatively stable for decades. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

We can also talk about the Arab Peninsula. Almost all the Gulf states are monarchies and they are among the wealthiest and most stable states in the region. People will immediately say “that’s only because of oil”, but Oman for example doesn’t have nearly as much oil wealth as countries like Saudi Arabia or Qatar and is still a very stable and fairly prosperous country.

Reasoning behind it:

What’s so special about having a king or queen? Nothing per se. The real advantage is having a non-political institution whose legitimacy is accepted almost naturally by the majority of the population. That’s where many African republics fail today.

The institution of the presidency is not seen as something sacred or permanent, it’s just seen as a political seat of power which anyone can take, usually by force. Everyone can stage a coup and declare themselves president, but you can’t just stage a coup and declare yourself king. A monarchy creates continuity and gives the state a face and a historical identity beyond whichever politician is currently in power.

In much of Africa, political legitimacy still tends to come more from clan, ethnic, tribal or military structures rather than from abstract republican institutions or constitutions. Loyalty often flows upward through hierarchy and personal authority. A constitutional monarchy could embody the existence of the state itself in one institution, and an attack against it would be seen as an attack against the nation itself. Right now in most African countries, presidents are not seen as embodiments of the state, they are just politicians (at best).

The case for Ethiopia:

The entire idea of Ethiopia fundamentally rested on a few pillars: the Orthodox Church, the monarchy and the historical continuity of the Ethiopian state itself. Whether people like it or not, that is what Ethiopia historically was for centuries.

The Ethiopia we see today, an ethnic federal republic, feels fundamentally disconnected from that older Ethiopian identity. There is very little emotionally or spiritually tying Ethiopians together anymore outside of raw state power. Ethnicity has replaced a broader civilizational identity and the state increasingly feels like a collection of competing ethnic interests rather than one nation with a shared historical mission.

The monarchy, despite all its flaws, was one of the only institutions that could transcend ethnicity because it represented the historical continuity of Ethiopia itself. The Emperor was not just a political leader, he symbolized the Ethiopian state, its history and its civilization. That symbolic legitimacy matters more than people think.

I genuinely believe Ethiopia’s instability today is partly caused by the destruction of the institutions that historically unified the country. You can disagree with the doings of the past monarchs, but removing the crown removed one of the main pillars holding the Ethiopian state together.

PS:

I know most of the people in the sub are Americans who gag just at word "monarchy" but i'd still like to hear what you're thoughts are, i appreciate a friendly and intellectually honest discussion.

I live in Italy, and despite our regional differences, we’re a fairly homogeneous and well-defined nation, with our own language, customs, and shared history tied to the peninsula.

The US, however, is so recent and so diverse that I often struggle to comprehend exactly what “the American people” are beyond citizens of the same sovereign state and people with a specific accent.

Americans can have very different origins, religions, languages, identities and looks and as a European, i struggle to see how that level of diversity makes a nation, in the sense of a people, not just a sovereign state. What am I missing?

So in his book American Nations, Colin Woodard argues that North America can be divided into about 11 distinct cultural “nations,” shaped by history, settlement patterns, and shared values rather than modern political borders.

For example, he describes regions like “Yankeedom” i.e. New England shaped by early english puritan settlers with a strong sense of collective decision making and civic responsability in contrast with “Dixie”i.e. the deep south shaped by scots-irish settlers, african americans, a resource economy and with a strong sense of individualism and rigid social hierarchy.

Using a similar approach focusing on culture, a ncestry, geography, and economic patterns, how many such “nations” would there be in Brazil? And what would they look like?

I'm an Italian who learned about this NRL convert during his debut against England in 2024 and i was completely blown away by his performance and became a fan.

Unfortunately, mainly due to time zones difference i haven't been able to follow him much in SR so his performances with the Waratahs are kind of unknown to me. This is why i wanted to ask; How has Sua'ali'i been performing two years-in in his pro rugby union career?

Thanks!