Of all the traditional forms of government, the one most reviled in the contemporary era is monarchy. The notion of a single ruler whose governance derives solely from that ruler’s judgement and desires is as antithetical to the contemporary sensibility as slavery. Indeed, it has been identified as a kind of slavery by its enemies, but this is overstatement, and serves to show the impunity with which one can now attack a method for government which has the longest history, the most magnificent successes, and the greatest possibility for progress.
These last claims seem extreme, perhaps, but they are no more extreme than my charges against the more popular contemporary forms of government, tyranny and democracy, charges which indicate the superiority of monarchy. Tyranny, manifest in totalitarian governments of many kinds, not only rules by reducing people to mere ciphers, but also has little history of preserving its governmental structure. Democracy, both in a representative form, as in the US, or in direct form, as in the ancient poloi of the Greeks, also reduces people to a standard unit, and promotes mediocrity of necessity. Neither of these systems creates the greatness of spirit that is the high water mark of human achievement.
Before going any further, let me state clearly that I use “monarchy” to refer to a pure, absolute monarchy, with no deference to any other human or group of humans. The current British “monarchy” does not meet my criterion, though most any British king before John would meet it. The current British monarchs do not actually govern, rather Parliament does. Prior to Magna Carta, the British kings ruled as absolutely as the czar of Russia or the emperor of China.
So how dare I defend the doctrine of a ruler primus supra omnes? Why not? From what defensible notion does “all men are created equal” spring? Only the doctrine of essences, that the equality proposed here is an equality of human nature, makes any sense at all, and does not contradict monarchy. It is ridiculous and unnecessary to imagine a monarch as different in kind from a subject. No, the difference is in the accident of the monarch’s birth. And are such accidents unimportant? Surely it is in matters of accident, not essence, that professional athletes deserve the money they earn. It is accident only that separates the billionaire’s child from the pauper’ child, but this difference is a difference that makes a difference. Twain’s assault on monarchy in The Prince and the Pauper is right in suggesting that no essential difference exists between the lad who would be king and his poverty-stricken lookalike. Nevertheless, once that accident of birth gives rise to accident of raising, to accident of experience, to accident of knowledge, even Twain knew that the difference between prince and pauper was real and important.
Any other notion of equality is given the lie by the reality of life in a democracy. Equality before the law? Not so long as no two attorneys have equal abilities and equal resources. Equality of opportunity? Not so long as inescapable physical and mental distinctions exist between persons. If no sense beyond the one proposed above can be made of “all men are created equal”, then monarchy is as compatible with this central element of the American public philosophy as democracy.
In fact, democracy is far more suspect as a metaphysically well-founded system since it overlooks important accidental difference in favor of the common essence, as if one person were in all ways the same as the next. In so doing, the accidents that makes us the people we are become trivialized. This attitude does not respect the individual, but rather homogenizes more surely than even the tyrant can manage.
And the tyrant, flawed mirror of the monarch, does homogenize. However, the tyrant pays no attention to any other individual’s importance. Alone, the tyrant’s individuality is given respect. In this respect, tyranny is at least less hypocritical than democracy, where the individual is supposed to be sacred, but is instead, metaphysically speaking, eliminated.
But to call the tyrant less hypocritical than the democrat is not to put either on an equal footing with the monarch. The tyrant can only rule by fear, through violence, caring neither for the good wishes of the subject nor the subject’s well-being. The tyrant exists in a state of war, either literal or figurative, at all times. History shows most tyrannies collapsing after the death of the tyranny’s founder. The intrinsic violence undermines social stability and cultural permanence.
The monarch rules by accident of birth, not by fear. One cannot deny that fear of the monarch exists, but fear of the government always exists, regardless of the governmental system. However, the monarch needs no fear to be a successful ruler, Machiavelli notwithstanding. Monarchs, true, absolute monarchs like Peter of Russia and St. Louis of France, needed no fear to present their subjects with law and order, with peace and prosperity. No, these monarchs maintained their hold on the populace through love and adulation. So, though some monarchs have made tyrants of themselves (and have often paid the price of such foolishness), monarchy is not identical with tyranny, and is able to create a desirable society. Tyranny can create only bleakness and despair, since these are the physical products that fear creates.
Are all monarchs so loved? No. Can all monarchs be so loved? No. Love is a matter of accident, not essence, and monarchs differ in accidents just as other persons do. The point to carry from this contrast is that the traditional democrat equation of monarchy with tyranny, and, therefore, with slavery, is a false analogy and unworthy of consideration as a counterargument against monarchy.
What, then, is the positive case for monarchy? First, monarchy is better at dealing with emergencies than democracy. This fact has been acknowledged since the Athenians elected a sole and absolute ruler during wartime thousands of years ago, and continues to be acknowledged in the present day via means such as the War Powers Act. One person, given complete discretionary power, can act more decisively, more flexibly, and more certainly than any committee or legislative body.
Secondly, monarchies have produced far greater cultural achievements than any tyranny, indeed more than most democracies. Where is the tyrant’s Beethoven, Leonardo, or Socrates? Where is the democratic Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, or Newton?
Thirdly, traditional monarchies have been founded on a far gentler model of competition and inclusiveness than its competitors. The tyrant’s war of all against all creates an air of terror and makes the competition in any field too frenzied and the unity too mortifying to be humane. Democracy’s egalitarian tendencies appear to undermine competition, wishing to do away with the accident of winner and loser. The inclusiveness this gives birth to undermines personal distinctions and creates a featureless mob from distinct individuals. Monarchy, instead, creates competition through a kind of sibling rivalry, where all subjects are children of the monarch, each vying for the favor the parent would bestow, but begrudging nothing but the glory to siblings. Thus, the Elizabethan era, the Periclean age, the glories of Augustan Rome, the grandeur of Ming dynasty China, the majesty of the Sultanate are the creations of the competitions between loving siblings for their beloved parent and their fellow children, subjects of a glorious monarch.
Lastly, monarchy promotes stability and continuity better than other forms of government. Monarchy provides, in the person of the monarch and family, a symbol for the public and a model for family values. The model so presented sets standards rather than follows them, by virtue of the status of the monarch. These standards create an environment of stability and cultural integrity that democracy with its necessary trend-following nor tyranny with its oppressive control can provide.
Thus, monarchy provides the environment that best enables the finest elements of humanity to blossom. Whether a hereditary monarchy, like most historical examples, or a monarchy of merit, the theoretical Republic of Plato, or, I judge, the actual state of the Papacy, this form of government has and shall always present humanity with its best chance for humane and civilized government. Humane, because it aims to produce a place to pursue the pleasure and goals which only humans can pursue; civilized, because it extends these pleasures into structure of the community at large. The monarch as the ideal human gives the society a goal and a driving force. That monarchs are seldom, if ever ideal, does not rob the role of cultural force or significance. Monarchy makes the world better by giving the world a foundation on which to build, a foundation which does not shift, like democracy, nor collapse, like a tyranny.
No comments:
Post a Comment