The practical experience of 20th century Latin America countries, and their history, both regarding domestic politics and dynamics and external influence and meddling?

This makes sense. Latin America is incompatible with democracy and the reason for that is history; such a conclusion is so obvious it is a surprise that anyone would support the idea of democracy anywhere in the continent

> Latin America is incompatible with democracy and the reason for that is history

I understand that all these events are historical so it is history after all. But the main factor of failing democracies in latin America in the last century was the external pressure and meddling from a particular superpower. There are too many examples of this [1]. I am really surprised you said that.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...

In a democracy, over the long term, short term interests win out over long term interests. This is true of both the citizens and the politicians.

In a monarchy, long term interests win out over short term interests because they're dynastic and stay within a family. There is a natural incentive for long term thinking that comes with a monarchy.

This makes sense. Kings are smarter and more selfless than bodies of democratically elected officials. One needs look no further than King Maha Vajiralongkorn for a contemporary example of a man that benevolently liberated his country from the hassle of managing its wealth