Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. You should read what Schopenhauer had to say about government, and this was barely 150 years ago, in the mid 19th. > "In general, the monarchical form of government is that which is natural to man; just as it is natural to bees and ants, to a flight of cranes, a herd of wandering elephants, a pack of wolves seeking prey in common, and many other animals, all of which place one of their number at the head of the…
The counter-argument is that even if you say democracy is sub-optimal, it’s certainly more stable than monarchy. Monarchy sounds good when you have a benevolent philosopher-king that does all the right things, but what if you get a bad king? That could mean decades of poor leadership. With a monarchy, lighting has to strike over and over again.
The Abbasid dynasty was at last conquered by the Ottomans -- themselves a >600-year dynasty.
Is there a democracy worthy of the name that has ever lasted >300 years?
"Certainly more stable than monarchy" -- nothing certain about it! History teaches just the opposite.
Sure, from time to time you get a bad emperor. Rome was lousy with bad emperors, towards the end. They tended to be "managed" by their handlers/Praetorians, and the empire marches on.
And Chinese history is basically like: Strong+cunning warrior leads a rebellion and establishes a dynasty, seizing the Mandate of Heaven. His heir, though still vigorous, is less strong and less cunning. His heir is weaker and duller still. By the 10th generation the emperor is a ne'er-do-well who does nothing but eat and write insipid poetry, and the empire is left to eunuchs and oligarchs who loot the populace. Rebellion ensues, a new warrior starts a new dynasty, and so it goes... This predictable cycle was stable for well over 1000 years.