I'm anti-statist. Not astatist. I reject the State. I don't pretend it doesn't exist.
But an identifier change isn't the purpose of this thread. The purpose is to address, as best I can, common attacks by the democratist (an advocate for democratic governance) against monarchy.
First and foremost, we must recall that some criticisms of monarchy equally apply to democracy itself. Although democracy allows the people some influence over the government, they do not and cannot actually run it. Even popularly elected governments are governments of rule from above. Thus the common trope of "authoritarian" governance being absent from a democracy rings rather flaccid. There is, in reality, no difference of substance between an aristocratic government and a democratic government, only degree.
Along this same vein of inane bleating against monarchy comes the condemnation of monarchy as a divisive symbol of inequality. The democratist, in making this critique, creates an idealistic society in which every individual enjoys the exact same status and from this status derives the same right, if not the same ability, to rise to the highest of political offices. But this stretches the actual meaning of democracy from a manner and method of choosing political authority to an egalitarian social ethos. A pipedream. It also creates a false dichotomy for monarchy need not obstruct easy relations among persons of different occupations and backgrounds; a suspicious egalitarianism is likelier to do that. In no society can all persons have the same status.
What the democratist actually complains about in this most common of tropes is divisiveness. But, I must ask, what is not divisive about an election? Are there not winners and losers? Is there not a victorious majority and an expropriated minority? A monarch, however, cannot symbolize defeat to supporters of other candidates, for there were none. He has no further political opportunities or ambitions except to perform his duties as monarch and perform them well in order that he might maintain the good name of his dynasty. A monarch stands neutral above partisan party politics. Obviously, therefore, a monarch is preservative rather than active. He secures his peoples freedoms.
Alongside a monarch comes, by necessity, the nobility - the aristocratic elite. They can provide an alternative to sheer wealth or notoriety as a source of distinction and so dilute the fawning over celebrities characteristic of modern democracies. If anything this rather disputes the claim of divisiveness in monarchy - it goes further still. Within this lens we see that it is democracy, not monarchy, that breeds a divided population.
I'm reminded of the words of H.L. Mencken:
"No educated man, stating plainly the elementary notions that every educated man holds about the matters that principally concern government, could be elected to office in a democratic state, save perhaps by a miracle. … It has become a psychic impossibility for a gentleman to hold office under the Federal Union, save by a combination of miracles that must tax the resourcefulness even of God. — the man of native integrity is either barred from the public service altogether, or subjected to almost irresistible temptations after he gets in."
For, the critiques continue... what if the monarch is a nutbag - a manifest danger to society? Well... what of a regency, popular among the people, to guard them against cruelty and incompetence until the next heir is ready? And, I ask, how is this behavior avoided in the modern and liberal democracies? A democratist politician is elevated not because of birthright or ability but, on the contrary, because of his incompetence. His lack of knowledge. A politician cannot be knowledgeable of economics or he cannot win office. He cannot be morally stalwart or he cannot win office. He cannot be anything but a liar, a grafter, a lickspittle, a politician. Otherwise, he does not win office.
It is true that there is, throughout history, a wonderful tradition of amazing statesmen who were public-spirited, well educated, and morally stalwart. They did not meet the measure of the buffoons characterizing modern liberal democracies. Why not? Because these statesmen existed and thrived in relatively less democratic nations. It seems that, in reality, Gresham's Law guides the political winds today.
So... for those who would argue that certain monarchies exist alongside democratic institutions I must point out that, among these nations, the monarch serves to dilute and otherwise guard against the democratic tendencies of the nation. Even in America there exists a non-elected elite for the sole purpose of protecting and ensuring the liberty of the population. This, I believe, is the utilitarian reason for supporting a monarchy. Beyond mere continuity and identity of the culture and heritage of the nation.
What say you, NSG? Are there critiques of monarchy from a democratic perspective that I have missed? Have I been unconvincing?
