Final answer:
In a republic, a monarch does not typically rule as the government is characterized by elected or appointed officials rather than hereditary rulers. Some historical examples show hereditary rulers in a republican form of government, but modern monarchies with ceremonial figures do not define a republic.
Step-by-step explanation:
Does a King Rule in a Republic?
In a traditional definition of a republic, a king does not rule since republics are characterized by having a form of government where the head of state is not a monarch, and the leaders are elected by the citizens or their representatives. However, there are historical instances like the Dutch Republic where hereditary rulers existed within republican forms of government. Today, modern monarchies are often constitutional, meaning that the monarch has limited or ceremonial powers, and the real governing power is in the hands of elected officials.
For example, in constitutional monarchies like the United Kingdom and Thailand, the monarch's role is largely symbolic, and the country is run by an elected parliament. On the other hand, in absolute monarchies, monarchs do hold significant power, but such states are not republics.
It's also important to distinguish that some states like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkmenistan are ruled by a single person, but they may use different justifications for this rule such as divinity, virtue, or both. In the context of democracy and republicanism, especially as argued during the American Revolution, republics were envisioned as a contrast to monarchies, particularly those that had become corrupt or tyrannical.