Hail to the Monarchy
On Thursday 8 September 2022, Queen Elizabeth II passed away. As the nation began a period of National Mourning following her demise, it did not take long for those in favour of a republic to make the #AbolishTheMonarchy trending on twitter, to express their disgruntlement against a system perceived as undemocratic and in which the royals supposedly enjoyed a copious amount of privileges (as if a Republican system is not offering privileges to the elites) and relish lavish spending.
I would abstain here to produce a comparison between the capital the state gains from the rent of the lands the royals own, the revenue generated by tourism, the businesses founded, the employment created (hotel bookings, visitor attractions, restaurants, souvenir) against the considerable expenses involved to maintain a republican system in place, particularly in time of pollings.
Instead, I will strive to demonstrate that the Republic granted itself an underserving good name.
Indeed, under the guise of a democratic process, the election of political parties only creates instability and the alternation after each plebiscite reflect nothing more than the revenge of one faction on the other.
Worst, the lust for power give rise to party leaders who too often have neither the stature nor the ethics to govern. In order to win votes, those ambitious individuals seduce the masses with demagogic speeches that value comfort over the truth.
As an example, the democratic system in a republic favours a candy seller, promising free sweets for all, over a dentist pleading about the risk of teeth cavities.
Besides, within five small years, how can a leader manage to build policies that might be profitable for the country and how can we guarantee that at the end of the mandate, such policies will remain instead of being suppressed with the election of the opposition? i.e. a vote to punish the current administration will result in their revocation.
In a republican system, the parliament and government are also subject to powerful lobbies attempting to influence their decisions in order to ensure that their private aspirations go above the public interest. Those lobbies sponsor political parties that always need operating funds and financial support during the election.
The one who pays you also own your freedom.
Oppositely, the very principle of a true monarchy lies in the independence of the state and without it, we cannot have any stable and lasting policies. Monarchs represent their country, parliamentarians represent only those who voted for them.
“A man who works to ensure his dynasty which builds for eternity is less to be feared than upstarts in a hurry to get rich and signal their passage by a few acts of ecstasy”
Joseph Proudhon, philosopher of anarchism.
Ideally, we need a monarchy which gives the right of initiative, a decentralised power allowing to citizens their say in the provincial and national affairs. The monarch, by virtue of the royal control, would only oppose a vote that could produce negative or deleterious effects.
Are those types of popular plebiscites promoted by the dedicated supporter of the republic? The individuals who rejected the result of the referendum on Brexit?
The royal power needs to be exercised over citizens who administered themselves freely.
“Monarchy is anarchy plus one”
Charles Maurras, French author, politician, poet, and critic.
In truth, the Republican system is more oppressive than the monarchy as through its artificial democratic structure, it disguises its factual violence under the so-called will of the people.
The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau detailed in his oeuvre how under a monarchy, the opulence of individuals could never place them above the prince. However, in a republic, wealth can place individuals above the law. In short, in a republican regime, money, not people, is power.
Inversely, a monarch does not owe its authority to riches but to the sovereign state. As an example, the late Queen of England, as her title suggests, is only in power because England exist. Therefore, a monarch is less likely to do anything detrimental to the country, compared to an elected leader in republic, by fear of losing the title.
Monarchs, from a young age, are trained to reign. Besides, they have an interest in preserving their kingdom as their descendants will one day take over the throne.
Republican elites are, on the other hand, not concern about those patriotic abuse of power restrictions. They are often ambitious upstarts who govern for personal glory, without attachment to the country’s history and legacy.
Monarchy means serving, Republic means be served.
Moreover, in time of troubles, monarchs and nobles have always assumed the duties conferred by their privileges. They took up arms to defend their people and kingdom. The republican bourgeois, contrastingly, have shamelessly sent hundreds of thousands to war by means of conscription.
“When you hate tyrants, you have to love kings.”
Victor Hugo, French poet and essayist