Reading history, Sakshi says every monarchy was bad governance, since a king was never chosen by…

Why

Sakshi has a real and important observation — a monarch genuinely wasn't chosen by the people, and that IS a difference worth naming from a democracy, where rulers answer to voters. But she's turning 'not chosen by the people' into 'was therefore always bad governance', and those are two separate questions. Whether a system was fair to CHOOSE rulers and whether that ruler actually governed well are different things: history has monarchs remembered for building roads, granaries, and courts of justice that genuinely helped their people, and it has elected leaders in modern democracies who governed badly despite being chosen fairly. How a ruler comes to power and how well they use that power don't always move together. Test: compare a well-regarded monarch known for public works against a poorly-run elected government of some other place and time — the type of system doesn't automatically decide the quality of governance. Her teacher is right: how a ruler is chosen and how well they actually govern are different questions, and 'not elected' doesn't automatically mean 'governed badly'.