One scholar argues a reasonable process of gradual acceptance for the political climate of the time is needed. Given that Israel was a loose confederation of tribes united by their faith, and without a strong political or theological leader, he argues that a series of displays of ability or, from a theological point of view, gifts from God as evidence that He was divinely chosen for rulership were needed to bring all the tribes on board for the inevitable loss of individual freedom resulting from the institution of a monarchy.

Some might say that the Book of Samuel is both, parts may be pro to this kind of government and some of it is anti. But before we look into it, let us first define the word monarchy for us to be able to understand the question further. Monarchy according to my friend Mr. Webster is a form of government upon which the power is vested to a sovereign, as a king or emperor which in modern times, usually, a hereditary constitutional sovereign; originally, the sole ruler of a nation. So base from that definition, it is somewhat in tune with the Book of Samuel because the people of Israel has chosen a king and the blood of that anointed one will carry the line of kingship. Unfortunately, Saul was the first and the last of hid line and there came another king not within his bloodline. Does that make it less monarchial as it is? No! As for my observation, the Book of Samuel is pro-monarchy for the very reason that it is through this form of regime has bring forth peace and greater security of the land. In the Book of Samuel, most of the events that have happened that are mostly stated are those of which monarchy has taken a big role in the unity of Israel.

REFERENCE:

            - Old Testament Survey, Stratford, Et. Al.

            - Webster Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition)