Richard Harris' speech on "why not shoot a president?" in The Unforgiven is unironically based, by the way. Japan is a very authoritarian society. The populace have an autistic level of respect for authority and conformity except for the few schizos willing to assassinate people, but I think even those schizos wouldn't dare go after the emperor. I mean, this guy didn't even kill the CURRENT prime minister, he killed the previous guy. What I'm saying is fuck the US and the gay constitution they pushed on Japan which is not even a third as good as the US' own constitution. Japan should chuck it out of the window. Absolute monarchy would totally work in Japan and I'm not actually convinced that a whole lot of Japanese people even give a fuck about democracy in the first place. They don't have the Shinto beliefs in the emperor being divine anymore, but their blind respect for authority is still strong enough for the emperor to have enough pull. Same opinion on Russia (even moreso, because they still have a fairly large Orthodox Christian "the king is appointed by God" faith and also because they've been ruled by the same guy for a million years now anyway). In an absolute monarchy, there are barely any important politicians to kill. The PM is still important, but in no way can be construed as the leader of the nation. In an authoritarian society, an absolute monarchy is the most stable. Jappos love government-san and would rather seppuku themselves than suffer the dishonour of crossing the road without permission. They are the perfect populace for royal dictatorship and would still be under absolute imperial rule if it weren't for those meddling kids at the Manhattan Project.
Lol you're a fucking retard.
Absolute monarchies (and other forms of autocratic government) can ensure stability for a while. However, their fundamental problem is that they end up promoting technological and economic stagnation, because power is concentrated in a small group of elites that fear creative destruction.
Technological changes threaten the power of the elites. See the industrial revolution, where autocratic monarchist states (such as Russia, Austria, and Qing China) were suspicious of new technologies such as railroads, because they threatened the feudal system that the elite derived their power from. Railroads come in, that means peasants can leave and new ideas can come in, which makes the population harder to control and extract wealth from.
The same dynamic plays out with economic change. Changes in economic conditions (such as industrialization) mean that people other than the elites can generate wealth, and become potential threats to power. A new class of increasingly wealthy entrepreneurs is a threat to the elites.
Together, these factors mean that an autocratic absolute monarchy has very little reason to promote economic or technological growth, in the name of stability. The problem with that is that it eventually dooms the nation to conquest or exploitation from without, and internal upheaval from within. Which makes the very premise of absolute monarchy (stability) irrelevant.
Of course, you could have an intelligent monarch who realizes this and works to promote development within his nation. The problem here is that monarchs are people, and people are mortal. What prevents a total retard whose in the line of succession (such as Wilhelm II or Nicholas II) from getting into power when the competent guy kicks the bucket?
Absolutism is a dead gay ideology, along with communism, multicultural democracy, and fascism.
