trollcatman wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Ironically, Kings and Princes in the Arab world always do better than the so-called presidents.
There often is not that much of a difference either, some "presidents" such as the Assad presidents are much like a dynasty. Makes no difference whether they call themselves kings or not. Though perhaps kings get a little more acceptance just because of the title. I noticed monarchs are often more popular then politicians, it's mostly true in Europe too.
That's because a dictator self-appointed "president" usually comes to power thro bloody brute force, so most likely he wouldn't be a some gentle person but rather some power-hungry psycho, usually any first person of any monarch line is of that crazy type.
While Kings (ie. Saudi Arabia, Jordan) or Princes (ie. UAE) rule by the virtue by virtue of birth to a family considered royal - at least there's a form of parliament(Shura) determining the new candidates, and giving power from brother to brother seems to work better than from father to son, at least they're making sure the new ruler is a wise old man rather than some young adult whom power might get to his head.
it's simply dictatorship system which has matured a bit better with time than newer dictator lines like Assad and Gaddafi.