It's a little of both, but the idea either way is irrelevant. The upside to a monarchy is that you don't get politicians clamoring to destroy their own country and society in order to be head of state for four years; the way you do in a republic. The downsides to a monarchy are obvious and numerous. In the contemporary monarchy, you still get ambitious politicians who want to control the government. Prior to that, dirty policking took place among the monarch's council and retainers. Basically, any system where people can work toward power or where people can be born into power are doomed to fail. We saw the age of nobility and kings eventually fail. We are currently seeing the age of republics failing. So what works? State power should be decentralized, its leaders should be selected randomly from among the populace, and they should serve for short periods of time. In order to keep the military or professional bureaucracy from controlling a government led by the ignorant masses, you will need a semi-professional bureaucracy put in place through mandatory national service. The government is the people. The people are the state. My guess is that public education will magically start getting a whole lot better since voting would no longer exist.