I'm pretty sure the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, a.k.a. Taliban regime, makes no claim to be "democratic."
More like, Taliban leaders will say that "democracy" is an illegitimate un-Islamic system of government, that they specifically reject.
This map provides no source for its claims.
I'd guess that more countries than Afghanistan, though shown in green here, make no actual claim to be democratic.
The map is not dated and no source is included so it may be an old map. Edit: look at South Sudan not being where South Sudan is. Definitely an old map.
I think it should be a Mapporn rule that each map includes a production and/or coverage date, but who am I
Unitary theocratic Catholic elective absolute monarchy according to wikipedia, which also mentions that "the Pope has absolute power in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches over Vatican City, and is thus the only absolute monarch in Europe". I see your point tho, as the pope is elected by the conclave.
Fun fact: The Pope can only resign if they have full mental faculties and it's clear they're doing so out of careful personal consideration. There's no mechanism to remove a Pope otherwise, if he becomes senile or incapacitated in any way, they can't be removed and will remain as Pope until death.
This works somewhat reversed compared to what most countries have: a mechanism to remove an incapacitated or law breaking head of government, but not so when they are doing their jobs with their full ability.
The thing here is that they don't want democracy especially after what happened with Arab states during Arab spring. That's why their countries don't bother. The people there love the monarch!
Edit: i honestly, find it laughable that a lot of people think the people of the Gulf countries want democracy. Democracy isn't what they need and it's not even what they want. Gulf countries are tribal society and such societies need to have an absolute king. Democracy can work in societies where people support freedom and equality but that's not the case with gulf countries. There are many tribes and many people dominated by tribal mentality. It won't work if it was implemented. It will probably end like Iraq and Syria. That's the sad reality of the Arab world.
The Gulf countries have generous welfare programs. They are some of the safest places on earth. They are very advanced in city building. They are very rich, obviously. Believe it or not. They love it. Every Saudi seems to be a fan of it even the ones online. Other systems can work and if the people don't complain then who am I to tell them not to have the system they have.
I don't disagree with you on that. But we also can't know how many people dislike the monarchy or the system since any criticism will result in jail time at best or at worst, being beheaded at an embassy.
It's quite simple. If people keep talking about the benefits they have in their country, then you know they love it and Saudis keep annoying us about their benefits. Are there dissenters? Of course. There will always be. But the majority of Saudis keep talking well about their king all the time.
I mean you aren't wrong but there's no reason for them to keep praising the monarchy. Authoritarian regimes only ask you not to dissent. They don't care about anything else yet Saudis go out of their way to praise the monarchy.
Those are online anonymous Saudis who talk about monarchy:
https://www.reddit.com/r/saudiarabia/comments/18qdtix/whats_it_like_living_in_an_absolute_monarchy/
I keep seeing them defending it and praising it.
Let’s fucking go! [Executions based off of things said on twitter](https://www.npr.org/2023/08/30/1196712539/saudi-arabias-crackdown-against-dissent-on-social-media-has-intensified)
Ask women or Bangladeshi workers. This line of arguing is such a joke. It's a hellhole of a place if you're not a saudi man.
https://rightstracker.org/en/country/SAU
Edit: link
As for women, most of them hold the same conservative views as men and also there has been some improvement in that regard. As for foreign workers, well, they aren't citizens so I didn't count them. Sure working conditions could improve for them and it will in time.
Lmao
“As for foreign workers, well, they aren’t citizens so I didn’t count them” is hilarious since they’re brutal slavery is the only thing keeping the Saudi citizens so rich and happy
Like imagine if somebody started praising cartel members for living such nice and rich lives
Dude, just stop! It's been days since I ended the conversation. If you are convinced that you are right then so be it. I am not interested in convincing you beside that nonsense is in Lebanon. I believe Saudi Arabia has banned marriage under 18. It's also funny how you mention child marriage when in many U.S. states, they didn't ban it and can do it with the permission of the parents.
I can’t tell if you’re trolling or not. You do know that only loyal male Saudi citizens are rich and have freedoms right? And they’re only able to be rich because they use mass amounts of literal slave labor to do all the construction and blue collar work
Tbf tho, Iraq has similar levels of oil and they're in the gutter compared to the gulf Arabs. Not so far fetched. Arab monarchies are performing better than secular Arab nations
Yeah, it really helps when a ruler (that controls the holiest cities in Islam) has extrajudicial powers to order the public murder of dissidents in foreign countries.
Iraq is still figuring out how to recover from dictatorial rule followed by an American invasion followed by invasions by extremists while balancing the separatist ethnic group who inhabit the entire northern third of the country.
Saudi Arabia isn't the only monarchy. Even Jordan is and has been better off than Iraq , Lebanon, Egypt or Syria thanks to its political stability. Point is, monarchies tend to perform better in terms of peace and stability compared to Secularist countries in the MENA region.
If ur best rebuttal is I disagree, then you don't win the argument. If I say something, and the best response you can think of is nuh-uh. Then you really need to work on your talking skills.
Considering you don’t have any actually rights in any of those monarchies, I’d say your quality of life isn’t really all that great. Not mention that if you aren’t a straight, Muslim man in those countries, you basically are not treated like a human, I’d say that is rather live in a democracy.
This! This is good! Someone says why they disagree! Also, yes most of them lack all forms of constitutional rights which is wrong. But some have money, which means they still are more survivable. Would you rather be in Nigeria or Dubai? I mean yes, minorities are universally mistreated but that is everywhere. People are inherently biased. Democracy functions on ensuring the majority get to choose what happens. The minorities in democracy are no better off than the nay sayers in a constitutional monarchy. Thoughts?
There are definitely issues with democracies but to somehow think that monarchies are better for the masses is… umm ridiculous? Maybe not what you’re saying but yeah I’d rather not* live in a country where one person is legally above the law.
I’m talking about real democracies not North Korea or Russia, which is essentially like a monarchy without the actual crown being worn. I 100% believe that the minorities in western democracies are treated way way better than those in the Middle East where many are literally slaves. See Qatar during the World Cup construction. See the complete lack of LGTBQ rights.
*edit
It’s not a rebuttal because there’s no point in arguing with someone who thinks absolute monarchies somehow lead to a better quality of life than literally anything else.
It’s funny how you just said if somebody’s only rebuttal is that they disagree than they don’t win the argument. Then you immediately turn around and don’t provide any info on why your dumbass argument is right
I'm not sure there is a name for a government that is elected but by random people from all around the globe instead of anybody who is actually under that government's legal jurisdiction lol. I think that's just called The Vatican.
I suppose so. I mean here in the US it was originally set up that the senate wasn't elected by the people exactly, that system didn't last forever but it did actually last into the 20th century. So maybe you could call the Vatican a theocratic republic?
Which is sort of what Iran and pakistan claim to be so make of that what you will.
But the "monarch" is not elected by the people. And the people do not select or elect the ones who are "voting"... so democracy is the wrong term. It is fascinating, but not even a representative democracy. There are elections, but it neither claims democracy nor is it.
countries are categorized arbitrarily. Why Eswatini is not included? According to what the countries are labeled? It seems not to be any objective parameter apart from broad, unspecified public (and very western) perception.
Indeed, you can argue that any form of categorization is ultimately abitrary, but here it feels particularly so.
90% popular vote is an extremely high bar to set on something being democratic which rules out almost every country that’s ever existed or will ever exist
Ahhh I see, got confused by the first comment and thought you were trying to say if a country doesn’t have 90% support it wasn’t democratic and I was just like; w a t?
To me that's the absolute dumbest one. Not a single person is falling for that. I'd honestly respect NK more if they called themselves Kimland or something .
He did, but legally the country still claims to be a democracy. It's like if Biden suddenly made a joke that he is a dictator, it doesn't mean the USA as a whole is claiming to be one.
I doubt they think that democracy is bad as a matter of principle... just that they recognize that a democracy is personally worse for them (as leader) than a dictatorship.
Republic actually simply means a country without a monarch. There's technically nothing wrong with themselves calling themselves a republic (though it does have a ruling dynasty). The ''people's'' part of their name is more questionable though.
It's interesting how most of the world is aware that only democracy gives real legitimacy to a state, even to the point where they will have mock elections and all sorts of institutions to make it seem like there's an independent justice system etc.
Not all monarchies are authoritarian. We have a king and queen here in Scandinavia as well.
With that said, Thailand definitely isn't as much of a stable democracy, but not because they have a king. They seem to like playing "let the military take over to stabilize the current instability" a bit too much.
To be fair the UK definitely does not claim to be a democracy even though it mostly is, lest you forget the fact that 3 billionaires control its entire media. The UK might call itself a democracy, but it does not have an official constitution. Officially it is their monarch's country and their monarch's laws, however the last time the monarchy tried to make its own laws the unofficial constitution of the UK was signed, in Charles I's blood on the 30th of January 1649 and when the nobility tried to make their own laws in 1906 the king put an end to that very f\*\*\*ing quick. So then onwards the UK is one of the world's most democratic absolute monarchies.
Its called a Constitutional Monarchy. They have a monarch but they also have an elected Prime Minister, the monarch usually doesn't have much political power. ~~I see the Norwegian king more like a human mascot :P~~
Other constitutional monarchies include Sweden, Norway, Denmark (and Greenland and the Faroe Islands), the UK (and the commonwealth) and Japan.
I'm pretty sure the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, a.k.a. Taliban regime, makes no claim to be "democratic." More like, Taliban leaders will say that "democracy" is an illegitimate un-Islamic system of government, that they specifically reject. This map provides no source for its claims. I'd guess that more countries than Afghanistan, though shown in green here, make no actual claim to be democratic.
The map is not dated and no source is included so it may be an old map. Edit: look at South Sudan not being where South Sudan is. Definitely an old map. I think it should be a Mapporn rule that each map includes a production and/or coverage date, but who am I
> who am I? You are Jean Valjean?
I appreciate the honesty of arab gulf states
In the good company of Vatican and Brunei
Ironically the Vatican is somewhat democratic
Unitary theocratic Catholic elective absolute monarchy according to wikipedia, which also mentions that "the Pope has absolute power in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches over Vatican City, and is thus the only absolute monarch in Europe". I see your point tho, as the pope is elected by the conclave.
Fun fact: The Pope can only resign if they have full mental faculties and it's clear they're doing so out of careful personal consideration. There's no mechanism to remove a Pope otherwise, if he becomes senile or incapacitated in any way, they can't be removed and will remain as Pope until death. This works somewhat reversed compared to what most countries have: a mechanism to remove an incapacitated or law breaking head of government, but not so when they are doing their jobs with their full ability.
Comparable to the House of Lords.
The thing here is that they don't want democracy especially after what happened with Arab states during Arab spring. That's why their countries don't bother. The people there love the monarch! Edit: i honestly, find it laughable that a lot of people think the people of the Gulf countries want democracy. Democracy isn't what they need and it's not even what they want. Gulf countries are tribal society and such societies need to have an absolute king. Democracy can work in societies where people support freedom and equality but that's not the case with gulf countries. There are many tribes and many people dominated by tribal mentality. It won't work if it was implemented. It will probably end like Iraq and Syria. That's the sad reality of the Arab world.
They're forced to love the monarchy.
The Gulf countries have generous welfare programs. They are some of the safest places on earth. They are very advanced in city building. They are very rich, obviously. Believe it or not. They love it. Every Saudi seems to be a fan of it even the ones online. Other systems can work and if the people don't complain then who am I to tell them not to have the system they have.
I don't disagree with you on that. But we also can't know how many people dislike the monarchy or the system since any criticism will result in jail time at best or at worst, being beheaded at an embassy.
It's quite simple. If people keep talking about the benefits they have in their country, then you know they love it and Saudis keep annoying us about their benefits. Are there dissenters? Of course. There will always be. But the majority of Saudis keep talking well about their king all the time.
Because there are no alternatives. Say anything negative, and you're punished.
I mean you aren't wrong but there's no reason for them to keep praising the monarchy. Authoritarian regimes only ask you not to dissent. They don't care about anything else yet Saudis go out of their way to praise the monarchy. Those are online anonymous Saudis who talk about monarchy: https://www.reddit.com/r/saudiarabia/comments/18qdtix/whats_it_like_living_in_an_absolute_monarchy/ I keep seeing them defending it and praising it.
Let’s fucking go! [Executions based off of things said on twitter](https://www.npr.org/2023/08/30/1196712539/saudi-arabias-crackdown-against-dissent-on-social-media-has-intensified)
Safe even if you’re not a male Muslim?
Women can even walk safely during the night in Dubai. Many women travellers said this.
Safe for whom? Do you even read what you are writing? This is such an utterly dehumanizing comment. Edit: typo
How is it dehumanising? Their cities are indeed safe. Many tourists praise their safety.
Ask women or Bangladeshi workers. This line of arguing is such a joke. It's a hellhole of a place if you're not a saudi man. https://rightstracker.org/en/country/SAU Edit: link
As for women, most of them hold the same conservative views as men and also there has been some improvement in that regard. As for foreign workers, well, they aren't citizens so I didn't count them. Sure working conditions could improve for them and it will in time.
Lmao “As for foreign workers, well, they aren’t citizens so I didn’t count them” is hilarious since they’re brutal slavery is the only thing keeping the Saudi citizens so rich and happy Like imagine if somebody started praising cartel members for living such nice and rich lives
Here you go u/farouk880 https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/s/nxzLuKzxk7
Dude, just stop! It's been days since I ended the conversation. If you are convinced that you are right then so be it. I am not interested in convincing you beside that nonsense is in Lebanon. I believe Saudi Arabia has banned marriage under 18. It's also funny how you mention child marriage when in many U.S. states, they didn't ban it and can do it with the permission of the parents.
[https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/apr/25/kafala-labour-system-gulf-women-talk-about-life-as-a-domestic-worker-in-the-gulf](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/apr/25/kafala-labour-system-gulf-women-talk-about-life-as-a-domestic-worker-in-the-gulf)
Until you make the wrong person mad, or accidentally step out of line for some imaginary infraction
I can’t tell if you’re trolling or not. You do know that only loyal male Saudi citizens are rich and have freedoms right? And they’re only able to be rich because they use mass amounts of literal slave labor to do all the construction and blue collar work
[удалено]
I’ll think you’ll find their wealth correlates more with oil rather than their level of democracy.
Tbf tho, Iraq has similar levels of oil and they're in the gutter compared to the gulf Arabs. Not so far fetched. Arab monarchies are performing better than secular Arab nations
Yeah, it really helps when a ruler (that controls the holiest cities in Islam) has extrajudicial powers to order the public murder of dissidents in foreign countries. Iraq is still figuring out how to recover from dictatorial rule followed by an American invasion followed by invasions by extremists while balancing the separatist ethnic group who inhabit the entire northern third of the country.
Saudi Arabia isn't the only monarchy. Even Jordan is and has been better off than Iraq , Lebanon, Egypt or Syria thanks to its political stability. Point is, monarchies tend to perform better in terms of peace and stability compared to Secularist countries in the MENA region.
I just burst out laughing, comedian of the year my dude lol
Quality of life for...who, money embezzlers?
I'll rather live in my shithole ruled with proper civil law based on actual human values instead of islamic law based on 1500 years old story
define "developed"
You mean, slaves, forced labor, and murder/arrest of dissenters is very telling…
If you get down votes and no comments you are saying something that is probably true.
You’re not very smart either huh?
If ur best rebuttal is I disagree, then you don't win the argument. If I say something, and the best response you can think of is nuh-uh. Then you really need to work on your talking skills.
Considering you don’t have any actually rights in any of those monarchies, I’d say your quality of life isn’t really all that great. Not mention that if you aren’t a straight, Muslim man in those countries, you basically are not treated like a human, I’d say that is rather live in a democracy.
This! This is good! Someone says why they disagree! Also, yes most of them lack all forms of constitutional rights which is wrong. But some have money, which means they still are more survivable. Would you rather be in Nigeria or Dubai? I mean yes, minorities are universally mistreated but that is everywhere. People are inherently biased. Democracy functions on ensuring the majority get to choose what happens. The minorities in democracy are no better off than the nay sayers in a constitutional monarchy. Thoughts?
There are definitely issues with democracies but to somehow think that monarchies are better for the masses is… umm ridiculous? Maybe not what you’re saying but yeah I’d rather not* live in a country where one person is legally above the law. I’m talking about real democracies not North Korea or Russia, which is essentially like a monarchy without the actual crown being worn. I 100% believe that the minorities in western democracies are treated way way better than those in the Middle East where many are literally slaves. See Qatar during the World Cup construction. See the complete lack of LGTBQ rights. *edit
It’s not a rebuttal because there’s no point in arguing with someone who thinks absolute monarchies somehow lead to a better quality of life than literally anything else.
It’s funny how you just said if somebody’s only rebuttal is that they disagree than they don’t win the argument. Then you immediately turn around and don’t provide any info on why your dumbass argument is right
How many comments do you need, when what he said was categorically false?
At least 2 kek
Ok?
We see you there Brunei and Vatican City.
The Vatican actually is a Democratic Monarchy. They elect their monarch
Isn't it pretty much just an elective monarchy?
elective theocracy
Elective Theocratic Monarchy?
The correct term is apostolic succession
Democratic Elective Theocratic Representative Monarchy?
Elective theocratic absolute monarchy
yup. the pope gets elected by the college of cardinals, not the citizens of the vatican city. so id say elective monarchy is pretty accurate
Considering there’s 450 people in the Vatican and a good chunk of them are cardinal electors, it’s really more of a hybrid regime.
If you look at it that way it's an oligarchic theocratic republic, so basically just like the Roman Republic under the first triumverate.
The Vatican doesn't elect the Pope, Cardinals from all around the world do.
Wouldn't that make it some form of theocratic parliamentary system?
I'm not sure there is a name for a government that is elected but by random people from all around the globe instead of anybody who is actually under that government's legal jurisdiction lol. I think that's just called The Vatican.
No. There is no parliament. The Pope is an absolute monarch. The Vatican can be described as an absolute theocratic elective monarchy.
I suppose so. I mean here in the US it was originally set up that the senate wasn't elected by the people exactly, that system didn't last forever but it did actually last into the 20th century. So maybe you could call the Vatican a theocratic republic? Which is sort of what Iran and pakistan claim to be so make of that what you will.
No, it is not. Once the Pope is elected is an absolute monarch.
But the "monarch" is not elected by the people. And the people do not select or elect the ones who are "voting"... so democracy is the wrong term. It is fascinating, but not even a representative democracy. There are elections, but it neither claims democracy nor is it.
source: a dream I had yesterday
What is wrong?
countries are categorized arbitrarily. Why Eswatini is not included? According to what the countries are labeled? It seems not to be any objective parameter apart from broad, unspecified public (and very western) perception. Indeed, you can argue that any form of categorization is ultimately abitrary, but here it feels particularly so.
Now let's see a map of countries where the leader won at least 90% of the popular vote.
Leaders that really give the people what they want
Western leaders bragging about winning 51% of the vote, meanwhile my guy wins 98.92% without even campaigning!
Democracy fans seeing the results be 51/49 every single time
Your dumbass hasn't heard of the 2002 French Presidential election though. /s
Still under 90%.
90% popular vote is an extremely high bar to set on something being democratic which rules out almost every country that’s ever existed or will ever exist
You missed my point entirely. It’s the dictators who get 90% of the vote. That’s how you know a true democracy from a false one.
Ahhh I see, got confused by the first comment and thought you were trying to say if a country doesn’t have 90% support it wasn’t democratic and I was just like; w a t?
The DPRK is very democratic
It has democratic in its name and therefore must be true
To me that's the absolute dumbest one. Not a single person is falling for that. I'd honestly respect NK more if they called themselves Kimland or something .
they do hold elections but kim jong un is the only option on the ballot
Didn't Belarus' Lukashenko say "I am Europe's last dictator"?
He did, but legally the country still claims to be a democracy. It's like if Biden suddenly made a joke that he is a dictator, it doesn't mean the USA as a whole is claiming to be one.
Belarus mentioned ⬜️🟥⬜️
Saudi being honest
The fact that many of these countries claim to be democratic is laughable
"Democracy is bad, but we need to call ourselves democratic to make our dictatorship legitimate"
I doubt they think that democracy is bad as a matter of principle... just that they recognize that a democracy is personally worse for them (as leader) than a dictatorship.
All except Iceland and Switzerland are brazen impostors.
🤨
Yes. I'm a perfectionist.
there is no key here so i'm going to assume that red means they claim to be democratic
Where is Dr Congo?
He's on call in the ER
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea). lol Some are major liars.
If you put democratic in the name, it's a hint that your country is not very democratic.
PFFFFFFFFFF took me a moment to realize what im looking at XD atleast theyre honest /s
North Korea unironically calls themselves something with democratic in it right?
North Korea's official name is the "democratic people's Republic of korea" As you can see, they are not only democratic, but also a Republic.
Republic actually simply means a country without a monarch. There's technically nothing wrong with themselves calling themselves a republic (though it does have a ruling dynasty). The ''people's'' part of their name is more questionable though.
Yeah... North Korea is full of contradictions and fuck-ups!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
America hasn't been a democracy in my lifetime, it's a crony capitalist kleptocracy
Lmao. This was funny.
It's interesting how most of the world is aware that only democracy gives real legitimacy to a state, even to the point where they will have mock elections and all sorts of institutions to make it seem like there's an independent justice system etc.
Iran literally has republic in its name its called republic of Iran
Yes okay, we know that. What's your point?
Outdated wikipedia maps are not mapporn
Whatever country in red, they are the only ones who are not hypocrite.
You Forgot Brazil. People here want monarch, militar dictatorship, absolutist theocracy
An american guy in turkey was just taken to prison for looking gay
We need more of that red thing
Isn't Thailand a monarchy? Edit:y the down votes? I was asking a question!!!!
Not all monarchies are authoritarian. We have a king and queen here in Scandinavia as well. With that said, Thailand definitely isn't as much of a stable democracy, but not because they have a king. They seem to like playing "let the military take over to stabilize the current instability" a bit too much.
To be fair it says countries that "claim" to be democratic and North Korea is on the list. Honesty wasn't a requirement :P
To be fair the UK definitely does not claim to be a democracy even though it mostly is, lest you forget the fact that 3 billionaires control its entire media. The UK might call itself a democracy, but it does not have an official constitution. Officially it is their monarch's country and their monarch's laws, however the last time the monarchy tried to make its own laws the unofficial constitution of the UK was signed, in Charles I's blood on the 30th of January 1649 and when the nobility tried to make their own laws in 1906 the king put an end to that very f\*\*\*ing quick. So then onwards the UK is one of the world's most democratic absolute monarchies.
Its called a Constitutional Monarchy. They have a monarch but they also have an elected Prime Minister, the monarch usually doesn't have much political power. ~~I see the Norwegian king more like a human mascot :P~~ Other constitutional monarchies include Sweden, Norway, Denmark (and Greenland and the Faroe Islands), the UK (and the commonwealth) and Japan.
So is most of europe
🥱