This is a part of the world marked by atavistic political structures. Perhaps this country is a kingdom. A kingdom has a king, and usually dislikes him intensely. (At least one of his two bodies. Girard goes so far as to say that given the fascination with the model, and the rivalry that it generates, a king is simply a condemned prisoner with an exceptionally long commutation of sentence.) But in such a culture, it is thought, nonetheless, that there should be a king, and this king is the one at hand. A republic tends to function in a different, more mercurial manner. With occasionally problematic results, given the types of people who can come to power. Historically, this part of the world has seen many states in this model -- witness the monarchies that essentially governed the old Republic and the large nation to the east for decades.
A nation doesn't change its character by political action, but by cultural transformation. A kingdom can't become a republic by electing a republican slate. In the same manner, the government has nothing to do with whether a country is a kingdom, a pure democracy, or a republic. The people make the king. Transformation, if it is desired, has to come in the nation's notions of itself, before its political actions can be characterized as transformative.
Apolitical, of course, as to local questions. None of the local political factions or paradigms seem to hold much truth or seem justified to me, which is as it should be. They exist for the people of this place, and the people of this place are the only ones who can find them either necessary or superfluous. The form of the state is a matter for the people of the place.