At present, the institution of monarchy is largely seen as a relic of a bygone era, limited to figurehead status within modern parliamentary states like the United Kingdom, or to totalitarian states such as Saudi Arabia. Yet, for thousands of years, monarchy was considered to be the premier form of government, an institution that was universal to almost every nation and culture. Though democracy focused political thinking tempts us to view the concept of monarchy as outdated, a closer examination reveals that monarchy carries a variety of benefits, many of which have become increasingly appealing with the rise of COVID-19.
Some of the most prominent advantages of monarchy lie in the unitary nature of the institution. The first and foremost of these advantages is the consistent nature of monarchy. With benefit of choice that accompanies a democracy comes uncertainty. While parties in a democratic system generally fall within the continuum of ideas that are acceptable to a society, the openness of the democratic system can facilitate the rise and spread of radical ideas due to the influence of demagogues. While monarchs are not immune to radical ideas, as Henry VIII potently demonstrates, there is a lower likelihood that they could be swayed in the same way demagogues sway the populace. As a singular governing entity without attachment to a party that would otherwise shape decision-making, the monarch has less connection to ideological factions, save for the philosophical precepts that govern the state. Such a lack of partisanship would ease political divisions that have recently grown sharply in western democracies, as citizens would no longer be battling each other for their respective parties to take the reins of power.
Furthermore, the monarch’s singular power gives it unparalleled agency compared to other forms of government. While they can be helpful in fostering deliberation and preventing rash decision-making, divided legislatures can prove significant obstacles that may delay or even prevent the creation of statutes that would be pertinent to the time. It is often the case that partisanship is to blame for legislative stagnation. Stagnation becomes particularly problematic in times of crisis, such as the refusal by senate Democrats in April to pass an aid package for small businesses unless they received funding for their interests as well. In the case of an absolute monarchy, the monarch has no such legislative constraints, and is free to make law according to the needs of the country. In cases of a constitutional monarchy, such as the Principality of Liechtenstein, monarchs still possess the necessary executive power to streamline the legislative process. While the Landtag is the country’s primary legislative body, the Prince still possesses the ability to veto legislation and to dismiss and appoint the prime minister.
Such concentrated power inevitably draws fears of tyranny in the minds of those with a more liberal attitude toward government. Like all members of governing institutions, monarchs are people, and are naturally prone to be flawed. Indeed, there have been various kings and queens who have acted as terrible tyrants. The name Henry VIII is prominently engraved in the minds of Catholics as an example of one of the worst oppressors of the church in history. Yet, various republics have engaged in similar levels of oppression towards the Catholic Church, most infamously Republican Spain during the Red Terror and Mexico under Plutarco Calles in the 1920s. Furthermore, democracy has also produced its fair share of infamous tyrants. It was the National Convention that facilitated Maximilien Robespierre’s rise to power, and it was the republican German Reichstag that passed the Enabling Act, allowing Chancellor Adolf Hitler to assume emergency powers. In addition, notable monarchs have gone out of their way to oppose tyranny historically. In Romania in 1944, Michael I, who had been reduced to a figurehead, took back his power in a coup and overthrew the Nazi-sympathizing dictator Ion Antonescu. As history demonstrates, tyranny is not inherent to monarchy any more than it is to democracies and republics.
As a matter of fact, monarchy has unique structures that serve to diminish the possibility of a tyranny rising. The most prominent of these is the hereditary succession that is an integral part of the monarchy. Unlike elected institutions, the identity of the future ruler is known years, if not decades ahead of their ascent to the throne. This period of time allows for the heir apparent to undergo rigorous training for when the day arrives for them to take the throne. Aside from honing their governing skills, the training that accompanies hereditary succession shapes the future monarch’s will to coincide with that of the state.
The issue of power is especially important when considering the present pandemic. A cursory examination of many U.S. states reveals that something has gone horrendously wrong. Elected officials have taken unprecedented steps to expand their power, with a poster child in the form of Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI). Aside from restricting travel between residences, Whitmer has imposed such inane regulations as restrictions on selling seeds and paint. While it could be argued that this is a glimpse at what the concentrated power of a monarch would look like, there are several key points that distinguish between the two. Foremost of these is that the governors are elected officials. It is often stated that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I would instead venture that it is the desire for power that corrupts. This is one of the first tastes of true power that many of our elected officials are experiencing, and they desire to expand their powers accordingly. By contrast, an official endowed with strong power and instructed from birth on how to use it would likely be less inclined to test its limits, as that person would not have anything more to gain.
It may also be argued that tyranny depends less on the type of government, but on the overall philosophy of the government. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive states in the world, while Liechtenstein is an extremely libertarian one. Both states have monarchs with great powers, but each governs their state according to its philosophy rather than according to its method of government. The same is true in the United States, where Republican and Democrat governors have taken differing lockdown measures that parallel their ideological values. In other words, it is philosophy that truly makes a tyrannical government, rather than the system.
To clarify some remaining questions, I do not necessarily wish for the installation of a monarch in the United States. Also, though I consider myself a monarchist, I am not using this article to advocate for a broad return to monarchy. Rather, I hope the points I have illustrated give pause for thought. It is clear that something has gone wrong with our system of government, and the Coronavirus has only served to accentuate the issues in the system. Perhaps this pandemic should give us pause for thought in regard to government, that democracy is not necessarily the purest form of government, and that other systems of government have their own merits. To address the future, it helps to reflect on the past.