Maybe, if the monarch is only a figurehead, but I wouldn't say it was a 'classic example'. An oligarchy is by definition a group of people and a monarch is by definition a single person.
A ruling monarch is more likely to be a Charismatic or non-charismatic dictator.
The "classic example" varies quite a bit depending on when and where you are in history. Absolute monarchy in France, for example, was the end product of a long struggle between the monarchy, regional nobility, the Parlements (regional legislative and judicial bodies), and the Church (not to mention other religions), who all competed with the Monarchy over the right to make law and implement taxes. At some points in its history, France might have been considered a balkanized state, an agglomeration of individual oligarchies jealously protecting their prerogatives from each other and the King, despite the existence of a supposed monarch.
You also have to judge the government in terms of its impact on the governed. Britain had a ruling monarch - a single person - but the monarchy's power, in terms of the average man-on-the-street, was limited through much of British history. The local nobility, administrative leaders of the cities, church leaders, and later Parliament all held significant power and were more likely to be the ones whose decisions impacted the average person than the king was. Britain, despite its monarchy, would have been more of an oligarchy for much of its history.
don't forget a low law can also resentment a place where people have little protection under the law and dose not uphold and enforce what we consider civil rights.
"Law level is an indication of the
relative oppressiveness of the world. The digit is classified on the law level table to show prohibitions against weapons. It is also the throw (law level +) to avoid being harrassed or arrested by local authorities."
Law level does not speak to cultural factors. Whether or not there is a need for civil rights protection, and whether those protections were adequate, depends a lot on cultural factors - and therefore on the specifics of the local culture created by the gamemaster. A white cowboy in the late 19th century American west had reasonably adequate civil rights protections: he could expect to be judged by a jury of his peers according to laws written by an elected body. A Native American living under the same law and government could count on few such protections: folk could and sometimes did disregard the letter of the law where he was concerned. A law codifying your rights is little more than ink on paper if the lawmen and the judges and juries choose to ignore it where "your kind" specifically are concerned.
In this context, the law level betrays a bit of ISS bias. Consider for example that a religious dictatorship may have a very high law level. Consider also that, from the point of view of the religious adherents, the government is not at all oppressive: it is only right and proper for people to behave in a manner consistent with religious teachings - one would no more tolerate behavior that led society on a path toward heresy and destruction than one would tolerate murder and robbery on the streets. From the point of view of a traveller, it's a very high law level. From the point of view of the faithful, it's just codifying the details of the culture they were brought up in.
Or, the local law level might be quite high ONLY with respect to travellers: locals, distinguished perhaps by a shape of eye, skin color, hair color, and certain mannerisms, may carry whatever weapons they prefer, and many laws apply only to strangers (because only a stranger would even think to do that). Alternately, the local law level may be quite low - except where certain disenfranchised minorities are involved: those of the disenfranchised minority may be barred from owning weapons, subject to oppressive curfews, limitations on movement, and other laws applied only to them, and may face frequent legal harrassment from authorities who pay little attention to those of the advantaged majority.
