Monarchy is too broad, every society had different cultures and systems that underpinned the entire structure. For example, in what is now Nigeria, the Hausa-Fulani from the north had strong rulers (Emirs) whose orders were absolute. In the Southwest, the Yoruba king (Oba) was absolute but could be legally overthrown by the council that served under him if two thirds voted to oust him but with the caveat that they will have to be buried alive with him if he were to die. This served as a check on unnecessary objection to the Oba's orders. The Igbos from across the river, in the Southeastern part of what's now Nigeria didn't have absolute rulers and was one of the many societies in the world who never evolved monarchies. They were republican as could be in ancient times, they had communities (Umunna) and major decisions were discussed by male heads of household within the Ummuna and decisions were put to vote. They only started having kings when the British came and because there was no clear leader to negotiate with they just appointed people (warrant chiefs), those chiefs and their descendants later became Ezes (kings). All these societies had 'monarchs' at one point or another but operated under different systems.
No society is 'special' but every society is unique. There may be surface level commonalities but under the surface there are enough differences. South Korea started it's developmental journey under military rule, they were led by a competent leader who created a competent bureaucracy. Nigeria was also under military rule from the 1960s until 1999 but the military rulers completely destroyed every working institution in the country. Same system (military dictatorship) but different in terms of quality of leadership, culture, and operations created two different outcomes for both countries.
