In Defense of Monarchy

 

All nations operate on shared delusions. I see this perhaps more clearly than most because I have lived in several different cultures.

One dangerous delusion Americans share is that there is something fundamentally wrong with monarchies. I heard it just recently from a panelist in a US news show: “no matter what the problems with our democracy, surely it is better than living under a dictatorship or a monarchy.”

Is it?

For that matter, are monarchies and democracies different systems? A democracy is not the same thing as a republic.

This prejudice has caused America much grief. When they left Iraq, for example, they could have saved many lives and much treasure by handing the keys over to a monarch and going home. Instead, they stayed and tried, absurdly, to impose a democratic republic. A contradiction in terms: to impose democracy.

A monarchy is a valuable asset to a stable democracy. Most of the world’s strongest democracies are monarchies: the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, Malaysia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium. There are reasons for this. Democracies require unity and trust: you have to know your political opponents will deal fairly with you out of power. A monarch is a useful point of unity; a shared loyalty and a referee for the transition of power. The monarch has more often than not been a backstop preserving democracy under threat. The flag never falls into the street to be seized by the strongest arm. Compare the great republics of France and the United States; compare republican Spain or Weimar to royalist Spain or Germany. The republics do seem more prone to dissolve into revolution or civil war, or be taken over by some dictator.

A monarch gives the nation a human face; a royal family makes the state feel more like one big family. Everybody is brother and sister. This is humanizing. This preserves civil peace. People naturally care about people, not pieces of paper. And more about people than ideology.

Without a royal family as the focus for a nation, the obvious alternative is ethnicity. This is bad news for any ethnic minorities. At best, they must feel left out, never at home. At worst, you have Nazi Germany.

If not ethnicity, you have a nation unified by ideology or religion. The United States managed this. So did the Soviet Union, or Maoist China. So did the several Muslim caliphates. But there are only so many ideologies or religions powerful enough to preserve consensus among a large group of people. And you necessarily risk limiting freedom of thought. The situation becomes difficult for minority religions.

Accordingly, monarchy is best at allowing diversity, and at preserving peace and equality in any diverse state.

It also introduces an element of glamour and magic to everyone’s lives. Monarchies are romantic. Lacking one, America has obviously compensated with their “stars” and “idols.” But this system seems terribly damaging to those caught up in it. Unlike monarchies, these celebrities are not groomed for the role, and their fame almost inevitably fades. The psychic strain must be incalculable. Many crash and burn.

A monarchy also seems to inoculate a nation against nepotism in politics. There is some instinctive craving, that in republics throws up political “dynasties,” like the Kennedys, Bushes, or Clintons in the US, the Gandhis in India, the LePens in France, the Marcoses and the Aquinos in the Philippines. Compare Britain. With a monarchy, this seems much less common. The need is met, and does not interfere with meritocracy in government.

For democracy to function requires a high-trust society, with established traditions of gentlemanly debate. If a society has not developed the necessary traditions, monarchy is again the best alternative, and the one most likely to peacefully and naturally segue into democracy when conditions allow. Either a dictator or a democratically elected leader is there because of a burning interest in acquiring power over others. This is just the sort of personality we do not want in charge. A monarchy will throw into power random personalities. The average person is not very interested, if at all, in power over others. A dictator, or even an elected leader facing defeat, has every incentive to loot the treasury before he leaves, is ousted, or dies. But a monarchy passes on to the son; it is natural instinct to preserve the inheritance for the next generation.

All systems are imperfect, as families are imperfect, but monarchy has natural safeguards.

Compare the various monarchies in the Middle East, where there is no democracy, to the republics; notice who is doing well, not persecuting minorities, and who weathered the “Arab Spring” without chaos or civil war. Compare Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Oman, Kuwait, Jordan, Morocco; with Libya, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza. See the difference?

Surely the monarchic system proves its worth. It is time-tested, and our ancestors were not fools.