The Real Argument for Monarchy

 

Two Canadian YouTubers, JJ McCullough and Useful Charts, have recently put out competing videos for and against the proposition “Should monarchies still exist in the 21st Century/” I think neither mounts the proper case for monarchy. Although nominally in favour of their continued existence. Useful Charts condemns absolute monarchies as having no place, and rejects monarchy for Canada as unsuitable for a multicultural society. I disagree with both assertions.

The essential value of a monarchy, neither seem to understand, is that it puts a human face on the nation. Without something of that sort, people will not work for the mutual benefit, but will pursue self-interest. And it is not just an individual human face, but a family—it models the nation as a family, which is an ideal model. If we all think of one another as family, given normal human instincts, we will treat one another better.

Some states can feel familial without this, because the population is genetically related; they are in fact, in a sense, a very large family. Precisely because Canada does not have that, and because that alternative approach leads almost necessarily to racism and discrimination against ethnic minorities, a monarchy is especially valuable to Canada.

A monarchy is the almost necessary alternative to the nation state. And the nation state, emerging largely in the late 19th and early 20th century, has not had a great track record for human rights and social tranquility.

Aside from cases in which a monarchy might be needed to replace absent ethnic bonds, monarchies seem to work better than ethnic bonds themselves in maintaining good social order.

Think of nations most notable for general social tranquility, for social peace. What countries come to mind? Scandinavia, Britain, Canada, Japan, perhaps the Netherlands. Mostly monarchies. Now compare the major democratic republics: the US, France, Germany since 1918. Placid and prosperous most times, but undergoing periods of tumult, revolution or near-revolution, violence in the streets.

Turkey overthrew the monarchy after the First World War: a period of civil war and ethnic cleansing followed. Russia threw off its monarchy in 1917: a period of civil war and ethnic cleansing followed. Germany threw off its monarchy in 1918; a period of civil war and ethnic cleansing followed. France threw off its monarchy in 1789: a period of civil war and ethnic cleansing followed. Britain temporarily threw off its monarchy in 1649. Ask Ireland about ethnic cleansing under Cromwell.

Useful Charts objects that Queen Elizabeth represents only one Canadian ethnicity. Which ethnicity does he mean? Her recent ancestors are mostly from Germany; she is not ethnically English. Her husband is officially Greek, but raised in France. In 1914, the King of England, the Czar of Russia, and the German Kaiser were first cousins. To think of any royal as any given ethnicity or another is nonsensical. 

A monarch is an ideal unifying figure for a multi-ethnic state.

Useful Charts worries that the monarchy is especially offensive to Canadian First Nations. This is the opposite of the truth on the ground. Canada’s First Nations prefer to deal with the monarchy, because it implies they have sovereignty; their treaties are with her. Canadian courts are obliged to give them the benefit of the doubt, because of a supposed need to uphold “the honour of the crown.” Compare, as a result, the peaceful relations between First Nations and the government in Canada to the frequent Indian Wars in US history.

JJ McCullough argues that the premise behind monarchy is offensive: that they hold their positon by divine right. This has never been an accepted concept. The Glorious Revolution established as a legal principle that the British, and so the Canadian, monarch holds her position at the sufferance of parliament, not God. Other royal families have similar checks, even supposedly absolute ones. The Saudi King is selected by a consensus of the ruling family, and the family must ultimately stay on the good side of the religious authorities.

Useful Charts argues that modern monarchs hold their position due to their popularity, which is not quite the same thing. McCullough seizes on this to argue that, if popularity is the basis, they should run for office to prove this; therefore, any monarchy should be replaced by an elected leader.

But there is an important and valuable difference. A politician must run for office. To reach the top of that greasy pole, or to want to, requires an entirely unnatural lust for power and fame. This means, necessarily, that his or her values are distorted, and in a dangerous direction. By making the titular leader hereditary, this is avoided, at least for this position. While the modern monarch may have few powers, they are at least one sane voice at the top of government, that the politicians will want to and feel some need to please.

Useful Charts, in condemning absolute monarchies absolutely, does not grasp another important factor. For some societies, democracy is not viable; there is not a sufficient cultural tradition of disagreeing with one another politely, keeping to set rules of engagement, retiring peacefully in defeat, and not exacting revenge on your rivals in victory. All of this goes against human instincts. In such a culture, the only possibilities are a self-appointed dictatorship or a monarchy. Then, monarchy is infinitely preferable. One rises to dictatorship in such a country by being more ruthless than the next guy, and having ta stronger lust for power. For a dictator, the temptation is also to loot the country for everything you can, for you might one day lose power to another just like you. Even if you do not, one day you die, and some stranger takes everything you built. Why build?

But for a monarchy, being a ruling family, the natural instinct is to keep the country intact and, ideally, improved, for the children. You know them personally, think of them fondly, and want them to remember you well.

Compare the monarchies with the republics of the Muslim world. Monarchies: Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco, Malaysia. Republics: Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Libya. Who is more peaceful? Who has more human rights? Who is more prosperous?

A monarchy also allows for Plato’s ideal leadership. Knowing in childhood he or she is likely to inherit specific responsibilities, a child can be educated for the position. This is not practically possible for elected leaders in a republic, because their success is unpredictable and, individually, highly unlikely. Every one of them is going to be, at best, a talented amateur.

The two things that might be said against a monarchy is that it costs money for a relatively idle position, and it violates the spirit of human equality.

But in Canada’s case, it actually costs us nothing. In other cases, there is no rule or monarch’s union requiring any particular level of pay. And as for human equality, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it: philosophical concerns about modelling human equality aside, monarchies have a good track record. As Useful Charts points out, some of the countries with the highest level of actual income equality, not to mention the highest level of human rights, are monarchies. Historically, a strong monarchy has always meant a weaker upper class, and vice versa: in France, in the UK, in Japan, in China, everywhere. That may necessarily be true.