Would/Could a monarchy start today?
I read an article which claimed that monarchies could never start in a modern society. But, I think that is factually incorrect. In fact, according to this, St Kitts and Nevis became a monarchy as recently as 1983. Now, this is a constitutional monarchy, but at a time when so many constitutional monarchies are considering breaking their ties with the monarchy I don't think it is far off.
It means a newly formed government, was formed in modern times accepting the Queen of England as head of state. However symbolic the bulk of her powers may be. And that is pretty bold.
I would also say that many fascist governments really don't fall far from that tree either. In fact, I would call any fascist government with even moderate support a "fledgling monarchy". I would even call present day America a "Proto-Monarchy".
The article also assumes that there is nothing good or redeeming about monarchies. And this is simply untrue. We don't REALLY have many true monarchies left in the world, and that is because the things which make them good are rarely long lived.
But, what makes a monarchy (of the non-constitutional variety) bad is also what makes it good. Having all of the power vested in one or a very small number of individuals makes for swift decision making.
And here we see why I think of America as a Proto-Monarchy. Donald Trump enjoys widespread support. Maybe not a majority of the country, but certainly not an insignificant percentage of the population. Previous generations of lawmakers and Presidents (and those pesky framers of the constitution) make a lot of what Trump has done and wants to do, at the very least, borderline illegal. And yet, he remains in power and retains support.
Even without the backing of a majority of the population, and with a loss of control of one part of the government, he continues to wield the push the boundaries of power allotted to his position.
People, generally, should be outraged. What he is doing is setting precedent. When a Democrat eventually takes the White House they will use the precedent established during Trump's term or terms to increase their own power. The stability of a nation is compromised.
But, a very large contingent still support him. And would like consent to and defend increasing the powers of the office further if it made the man able to carry out more of his campaign promises.
I don't think it difficult at all to see a scenario where someone equally anti-establishment, but perhaps less polarizing, could take the office and use their support and precedent such as those being established right now to declare themselves something akin to a king. At which point, the appointment process could be changed over time, to have the ruler either pass on the "crown" by bloodline or appointment to avoid having a competitor win an election and undo their achievements.
And that is really the crux of it. We've spent years watching changes in power mostly respect the decision of the prior administration. Respect was given to those who held the office before. This meant less power in the hands of those at the top, but it also meant less rocking the boat.
Governments that come in seeking to leave their mark by vilifying their predecessors and undoing and replacing their hallmarks and legacies create a precedent for the same to be done to them. It won't be long until the people want a champion whose legacy can't or won't be undone. And the only way to accomplish that in an office with ever expanding powers... is for it to cease to be a democracy.
Yeah, monarchies and the likes don't tend to last either. Their problem is another; the Yin to democracies Yang. If all Roman Emperor's were of the same vein of someone like Marcus Aurelius, then the Roman empire may very well have survived to modern day, and maybe even taken over the globe.
But, even the great Roman democracy turned into an Empire. Lines of succession eventually drift from the original ideals that created stability. And governments are overthrown. They tend to get replaced with democracy like governments. And they last until people get dis-satisfied with the pace of change, they become turbulent and turn into things that look more like Empires.
Humans are funny creatures. We somehow think we're better than the humans of 2000 years ago. We haven't evolved much, if at all. Both in literal terms and in diplomatic terms. The monarchies of the future may be based less on magic swords, or the will of God. But, even that isn't too far of a stretch. There are certainly groups who believe that Trump was chosen by God and that he should have absolute authority. So, I mean, I can't even write off the possibility of a modern monarchy starting up with parallels to classic monarchies in terms of beliefs in the origin of the leaders "right to rule".
It seems like people don't quite grasp how monarchies actually start. They don't start off with God Kings and sacred swords and mirrors. They start with a desire for lasting stability. The first Kings and Queens in such lines don't typically have or need such trappings. They have the support of the people. It is almost always in the first 2-3 successions that a basis for the right to rule needs to be established. Typically, when a less popular heir takes over and needs something to bolster their legitimacy.
People still want stability. They want their party to win forever. Eventually, enough people will want it bad enough to let someone establish a new monarchy.
It means a newly formed government, was formed in modern times accepting the Queen of England as head of state. However symbolic the bulk of her powers may be. And that is pretty bold.
I would also say that many fascist governments really don't fall far from that tree either. In fact, I would call any fascist government with even moderate support a "fledgling monarchy". I would even call present day America a "Proto-Monarchy".
The article also assumes that there is nothing good or redeeming about monarchies. And this is simply untrue. We don't REALLY have many true monarchies left in the world, and that is because the things which make them good are rarely long lived.
But, what makes a monarchy (of the non-constitutional variety) bad is also what makes it good. Having all of the power vested in one or a very small number of individuals makes for swift decision making.
And here we see why I think of America as a Proto-Monarchy. Donald Trump enjoys widespread support. Maybe not a majority of the country, but certainly not an insignificant percentage of the population. Previous generations of lawmakers and Presidents (and those pesky framers of the constitution) make a lot of what Trump has done and wants to do, at the very least, borderline illegal. And yet, he remains in power and retains support.
Even without the backing of a majority of the population, and with a loss of control of one part of the government, he continues to wield the push the boundaries of power allotted to his position.
People, generally, should be outraged. What he is doing is setting precedent. When a Democrat eventually takes the White House they will use the precedent established during Trump's term or terms to increase their own power. The stability of a nation is compromised.
But, a very large contingent still support him. And would like consent to and defend increasing the powers of the office further if it made the man able to carry out more of his campaign promises.
I don't think it difficult at all to see a scenario where someone equally anti-establishment, but perhaps less polarizing, could take the office and use their support and precedent such as those being established right now to declare themselves something akin to a king. At which point, the appointment process could be changed over time, to have the ruler either pass on the "crown" by bloodline or appointment to avoid having a competitor win an election and undo their achievements.
And that is really the crux of it. We've spent years watching changes in power mostly respect the decision of the prior administration. Respect was given to those who held the office before. This meant less power in the hands of those at the top, but it also meant less rocking the boat.
Governments that come in seeking to leave their mark by vilifying their predecessors and undoing and replacing their hallmarks and legacies create a precedent for the same to be done to them. It won't be long until the people want a champion whose legacy can't or won't be undone. And the only way to accomplish that in an office with ever expanding powers... is for it to cease to be a democracy.
Yeah, monarchies and the likes don't tend to last either. Their problem is another; the Yin to democracies Yang. If all Roman Emperor's were of the same vein of someone like Marcus Aurelius, then the Roman empire may very well have survived to modern day, and maybe even taken over the globe.
But, even the great Roman democracy turned into an Empire. Lines of succession eventually drift from the original ideals that created stability. And governments are overthrown. They tend to get replaced with democracy like governments. And they last until people get dis-satisfied with the pace of change, they become turbulent and turn into things that look more like Empires.
Humans are funny creatures. We somehow think we're better than the humans of 2000 years ago. We haven't evolved much, if at all. Both in literal terms and in diplomatic terms. The monarchies of the future may be based less on magic swords, or the will of God. But, even that isn't too far of a stretch. There are certainly groups who believe that Trump was chosen by God and that he should have absolute authority. So, I mean, I can't even write off the possibility of a modern monarchy starting up with parallels to classic monarchies in terms of beliefs in the origin of the leaders "right to rule".
It seems like people don't quite grasp how monarchies actually start. They don't start off with God Kings and sacred swords and mirrors. They start with a desire for lasting stability. The first Kings and Queens in such lines don't typically have or need such trappings. They have the support of the people. It is almost always in the first 2-3 successions that a basis for the right to rule needs to be established. Typically, when a less popular heir takes over and needs something to bolster their legitimacy.
People still want stability. They want their party to win forever. Eventually, enough people will want it bad enough to let someone establish a new monarchy.
Comments
Post a Comment