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.
For varying degrees of democracy: Athens: ~ 510-310 BC (yes yes 200) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy Rome: ~ 509 - 027 BC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic Venice: 697-1797 AD https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice
to name the most commonly known.
Also Athenian and Venetian "democracy" were so wildly different from the current model that it's really not at all the same thing. Hewing more closely to the Athenian model could solve many of the world's problems, but today's oligarchical (at best!) "representatives," having attained power, will not willingly relinquish it.
But I also fully acknowledge that invalidates my argument as well. However, I still think the stability of monarchies is overstated. Just because a dynasty lasts for 700 years doesn’t mean it was stable.
> modern democracies which haven’t existed long enough to compare with monarachy in terms of resilience.
lol, dude. Western democracy has been been on the wane for a long time now, and it's unironically just about over. The West is either going to continue down its path towards less democracy and plutocrat/oligarch/jurist rule with politics as bread and circuses (very bad, an intensification of what we have right now) -- or make a hard break towards more democracy and prole/populist mob rule (not necessarily a bad thing, unless you're a political extremist like, perhaps ironically, Yarvin himself.)
Polybius saw it all, in his day.
<-- Ochlocracy <--> Democracy <--> Oligarchy -->
I mean, democracy became popular less than 300 years ago, so probably not. That being said, if you squint then the UK is pushing 400 years of some form of democracy (modulo all the biased voting and the franchise only being given to rich people).