What government to have during peace is a moot question. Any will do, the less the better and none is the best. Beyond a judge and a police department, -- which can be wholly private, -- no government is needed and most is harmful in peace time.
Given that most countries either are at war or prepare for one most of the time, the choice of a "dictator" as you put it becomes important. Here the contrast between a dictator without a legitimate claim to leadership and a monarch who simply owns the loyalty of the force and the military infrastructure could not be clearer. A gifted field marshal a dictator can be (Napoleon Bonaparte); a man whose life long duty is to defend his people, often against his government, that is a monarch, -- he cannot be.
Now would you rather have a man skilled only in lying in speeches and charming the press, yet democratically elected or a king whose rights to the throne no one disputes?
Which brings me to the Carlists. They have one point: you cannot get a king by altering rights of succession to suit the moment. Yet that is a force that rose to defend their country a hundred years after the Carlist controversy began and no doubt, if Spain calls them, will take up arms again. That is the power of the monarchic idea. It is worth many divisions, and many elections.
Confusion between other forms of non-democratic leadership and monarchy is unfortunately common as a result of pro-democracy myth-making.
I wonder. This can only happen if people are involved in their day to day activities
What you describe would work in a town or village, but not in a city, even a small one and not in a country.
There is a balance between this and total fascism/communism.
Given that most countries either are at war -- I disagree with that, most are not at war.
A gifted field marshal a dictator can be (Napoleon Bonaparte); a man whose life long duty is to defend his people, often against his government, that is a monarch, -- he cannot be. -- I agree
Now would you rather have a man skilled only in lying in speeches and charming the press, yet democratically elected or a king whose rights to the throne no one disputes -- I would prefer a democratically elected gifted person who of sheer merit and capability is in power
power corrupts -- even the best. And a king has unlimited power for a long time -- even the best man can wilt under this - look at the latter stages of Hipparchus and Hippias in Athens
I must disagree with you on this matter. But to clarify — what type of monarchy are you referring to? A constitutional monarchy of the Scandanavian type with the king having next to no power and verylittle influence? Or the English/Spanish version? Or to the other extreme, the Saudia absolutist version?