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
The present-day statists would have you believe that a government is needed in peace time. But the fact is, all you get from the government in peace time is taxation; everything else you can get from private parties. In absence on the state monopoly on power I would purchase a personal physical protection plan form an insurance company that will contract private cops and lawyers, a pension plan and a medical insurance. What will I be missing, and why can’t I get it in a city or in a large country? It seems the insurance pool gets only bigger with scale, a good thing.
I would say that most countries are not in an intense war but we in the West, for sure, are in a low-intensity war and we have to prepare for a more intense war. The relatively peaceful 19c. in America was an exception; the same peirod was not peaceful anyplace else. For that reason I would not advocate anarcho-capitalism for out present condition, although I strongly suspect that if we were an anar-cap society today we would have less enemies and so less wars to prepare for.
Power corrupts especially those who are elected for a limited term. Then they either have to retire or get re-elected. In this environment people in government are renters of public property: they have an in-built incentive to use what they can while they are still in power. Even if they are of stellar honesty, long-term thinking for them is virtually impossible as every 4 years they have to satisfy another client group and that only can happen with government spending. This is why we have chronic deficits: there is no incentive to cut the budget. We also have more wars than we have to, because a war is a good excuse for all trouble and a good way to, again, get re-elected.
In contrast, a monarch is not a renter, he is the owner. He will own the national infrastructure so long as he lives and after that he will pass it on to his son. He has zero incentive to get the country in debt, or in war, or choke the population with taxes, or give them fake benefits. He also has no incentive to become a tyrant: the foundation of his power is a happy people who would not want revolutions.
The type of monarchy is a secondary consideration. Surely a monarch wants to encircle himself with a cabinet and he will want to have democratic forms of decision making when they are appropriate. Surely it is not a monarchy when the parliament can override the monarch, but in an advisory role a parliament is a very useful thing.
It is important to understand that a monarchy cannot be just decreed. A calling up a monarch is a rare event in the life of a nation; most modern nations simply do not have a monarch and have nowhere to look for him. A monarchy rises organically and involves a bond that the monarch forms with his people, gradually. It is more like marriage than it is like governing. This is why it is foolish to think of monarchy in terms of constitutional law, although the obligations monarch takes on toward his people are very real, and consequences for violating these obligations are severe for both sides.