Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

February 22nd, 2009

Tags

Comments

21 Comments so far.
Add yours.

From Monarchy to Chaos to Totalitarianism, Part 1: The Rule Explained

It should be clear to regular readers, from my posts on Nepal, Georgia, and America, that I am a constitutional monarchist. I believe that a constitutional monarch, often wielding great theoretical power or constitutionally designated as a national symbol, can play a great role in stabilizing a nation during difficult times. Or as conservative journalist Peter Hitchens once said:

I think [a monarch] is an essential part of a balanced constitution in much the same way that the king is an essential part of the game of chess. He doesn’t actually do very much, but by occupying his square, he prevents others from occupying it. I think the history of most countries… which haven’t had monarchies or which have gotten rid of monarchies, suggest that once they’ve gone and politicians start seeking the kind of loyalty and love which monarchs enjoy, you get very serious political problems, and often you get an end to democracy.

That may sound farfetched to an ahistorical citizen of the 21st century. Monarchy today is viewed by many as a backwards entitlement regime, giving benefits to undeserving aristocrats at the expense of hardworking, ordinary people, with no basis other than outdated history. But history shows that Peter is right. The abolition of a nation’s monarchy is regularly followed by a distinct pattern, a steady progression from a politically stable monarchy, followed by a quasi-democratic chaos, consolidated only through brutal totalitarianism. This slow pattern, typically taking 6-12 years, has been startingly reliable in a number of countries regardless of region over the past two centuries. Let’s look at five representative examples.

FRANCE
1789: King Louis XVI dethroned
1793: King Louis executed, start of Reign of Terror—calendar replaced, Constitution suspended, anti-clerical law passed, law of suspects passed
1795: National Convention dissolved, Executive Directory takes power
1799: Napoleon takes power in coup, war ravages Europe for the next 15 years

RUSSIA
1917: Czar Nicholas dethroned and executed, Russian Civil War begins
1923: Last hostilities of Russian civil war
1927: Stalin consolidates power, followed by collectivization and the reign of terror

CAMBODIA
1969: King Sihanouk leaves for China to recieve medical care.
1970: The absent king is dethroned and the monarchy abolished in a military coup.
1975: Khmer Rouge capture the Cambodian capitol of Phnom Penh, marking the start of a genocidal cleansing that kills millions of civilians, approximately one in seven of the entire population.

AFGHANISTAN
1973: King Zahir Shad deposed by brother-in-law Daoud in bloodless coup.
1978: Daoud murdered in Marxist coup. Communist regime established.
1979: Communist regime faces collapse to tribal insurgency, and the Soviets invade to prevent the regime from collapsing. Two decades of chaos begin.

ETHIOPIA
1974: The Derg, set up to investigate mutiny in the army, depose King Haile Selassie.
1975: After attempts at a constitutional monarch fail, Selassie is imprisoned and later strangled.
1977: Two consecutive presidents are murdered before the Derg elect Mariam Mengistu as head of state, Red Terror begins that leads to the deaths of millions
1984: Soviet-style civilian constitution enacted

Scary history—and what’s worse, it’s in danger of being repeated even today. Part 2 of this mini-series will cover some states in danger, and part 3 will address how the inevitability of this post-monarchy calamity can be avoided.

Comments to this entry

mihnea
February 22, 2009
10:11 pm
There's also the former monarchies of Eastern Europe as adequate examples to the theory. Namely Romania, although the interim b/w monarchy and totalitarianism was somewhat short.
Alfred Russel Wallace
February 22, 2009
11:05 pm
Is this a grizzly prediction for Lesotho, Morocco and Swaziland??
Curzon
February 23, 2009
1:02 am
Mihnea: There are countless examples, but these five really are representative. You could also pick half a dozen African, Arab, or East European examples, or even Great Britain itself.

ARW: That's to be addressed in part 3.
McKellar
February 23, 2009
2:23 am
No mention of Japan? Having an Emperor doesn't preclude bloody civil strife as warlords fight over who gets to be the 'other' monarch, but yet having an Emperor helps ease some massive socio-political transformations, i.e. the Meiji Restoration and the end of the Second World War.

Aside from that, though, you have to admit that most of these revolutions had socialist underpinnings, and accordingly the revolutions weren't just over who gets to be the big guy, but rather over what exactly constitutes the state and the nation. Marxists say leadership (superstructure) arises out of the working class (infrastructure), while Royalists say the workers work for the greater glory of the nation, embodied in the monarch. To reconcile the two, you end up needing an exceptional leader who draws his authority from both ends of the spectrum, a Napoleon or a Mao Zedong, and until that beloved tyrant comes along, all you get is violence. Even if the leader does come along, usually they can only keep their blended monarch-common man persona going through perpetual warfare.

Can we think of some exceptions? George Washington?
Our Man in Abiko
February 23, 2009
3:05 am
Well, Our Man is a Brit, but he's no monarchist. France seems to have fared well with no toffs on top. Interesting that you don't mention the States. It seems to have done OK for the last 200 years or so. Would Italy be better off with a monarch? Germany wasn't exactly stable under a Wilhelm. Think Ireland is quite happy to be rid of the parasites. Granted, there are lots of stable countries with constitutional monarchies, but methinks they would be stable anyway.
Curzon
February 23, 2009
3:11 am
Of course Japan's monarchy didn't stop warlords and civil war. Japan during the time you refer was also a pre-constitutional monarch from medieval times, not topic of this post, and the same could be said for that time to any medieval kingdom, from Britain to China. That's the fact about a pre-constitutional monarchy. (In Japan's case, the presence of the Emperor did aid the balance of power and prevent many warlords from setting up their own totalitarian monarchies, whereas Japan's monarchy has long been a powerless figurehead.)

The question is what to do as the country modernizes and the concept of divine right is discarded. My point was never that monarchs guarantee stability -- it was that the abolition of monarchs has typically beeen a prelude to the attempted implentation of a system based on utopian ideals with an unrealistic vision of society. It is no substance to a balanced constitution.

Yes, there are exeptions, and America is one example. Others are to be addressed in Part 3.
Curzon
February 23, 2009
3:18 am
OMiA: you're kidding about Germany, right? Monarch abolished in 1918, and whoops -- war ravages the European continent and then the world, not to mention the implementation of the world's first industrial-scale genocide. I only left it off this list because (1) the Kaiser abdicated, he was not overthrown; and (2) the war was the primary cause of the end of the monarchy, not a uptopian movement.

The above "representative five" are just some key examples. I could go on and on...
Sejo
February 23, 2009
6:37 am
Our Man in Abiko: Would Italy be better off with a monarch?

No. We've had a story of conquest, not a unifying struggle, and the Savoia family was a shame yesterday as it is today: the father inprisoned from time to time with allegations of arms dealing and a racket of prostitutes, the son appearing in pickles' ads and dancing in tv shows. Otherwise, yes, I'd agree completely with Curzon point of view: we need a symbol like that, we've always had a need for it, and the republican and constitutional rethoric hasn't been enough to unite the country and its long-time rivalry both geographical and political.
Our Man in Abiko
February 23, 2009
7:38 am
About Germany. There was the small matter of the First World War (in which the monarchist countries of Europe plus France managed to kill millions in the name of patriotism - king and country). The resulting instability of Germany was the fault indirectly of the Great War and the Depression. Sod all to do with monarchy or otherwise. Since 1945, Germany has coped rather well with no royals.

Sejo, agreed, but why does a national symbol have to be a hereditary toff? Can't it also be a piece of paper (a Constitution) or an elected representative?
Just An Australian
February 23, 2009
8:01 am
So, USA, Canada, India, are cases where a foreign monarchy was cast off. It seems not inevitable that the pattern you talk about is followed where it's a foreign monarchy that is cut off.

There's enough support for your position here in Australia that the proposal to stop Australia being a constitutional foreign monarchy can't get a majority vote.

I'm interested to know whether there's exceptions to the pattern. I'm sure there is, but I can't think of any. However I don't think that Russia is a case in point. From a broader perspective, the fall of the constitutional monarchy, to be replaced by the constitutional oligarchy after a period of temporary dislocation, is just another repeat of the Time of Troubles - and we've just had another. Normal service (autocracy) is being restored (though with a modern face).
Curzon
February 23, 2009
1:16 pm
OMiA, you're simply wrong about Germany. It, along with every other example noted above, saw the end of monarchy, and in its place went utopian idealists who thought they could remake a perfect society. And certain politicians went to do exactly what Hitchens identified -- "politicians start seeking the kind of loyalty and love which monarchs enjoy." And in their pursuit of this love, the freedoms, no matter how basic, that existed under these monarchs, such as property rights, died.

JaA, its amusing to see polls showing support or opposition for the monarchy. Polls show that a majority support abolishing the monarchy... but when asked, "should the governor general take the place of the queen in the Australian constitution," the answer is suddenly very different!
Adrian
February 23, 2009
5:16 pm
Curzon, I think you are reversing causation. Rather than dethroning creating chaos, I think generalized chaos includes the dethroning and then continues afterwards. Certainly that's what happened in both the French and Russian revolutions (I don't know much about Ethiopia or Cambodia). Deteriorating social and political conditions led to conflict which included chopping off some royal heads.
Lexington Green
February 23, 2009
7:03 pm
Absolutely right.

Constitutional monarchies are the best countries in the world, generally speaking.

They tend to be the best countries in their own regions. Would you rather be in Morocco or Libya? Oman or Syria? Japan or NK?

In Europe, the monarchies (Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden) are relatively stable, peaceful, prosperous places?

The Anglosphere Crown Commonwealth: UK, OZ, NZ, Canada, speak for themselves.

But it must be a CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy. The very problem with Germany in 1914 was that the Kaiser had way too much power. He had too few Constitutional limitations.
Alec
February 23, 2009
9:23 pm
"So, USA, Canada, India, are cases where a foreign monarchy was cast off."
For shame JaA in failing to know that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, and has the same Head of State as you do.
Just An Australian
February 24, 2009
2:34 am
well, I'll have to review my Canadian consistitional law. For sure they're more cast off than we are (the queen still has the legal right to mobilise the Australian armed services as she sees fit)
Adamu
February 24, 2009
3:48 am
Interesting theory and not one I see trotted out explicitly much. It makes some sense in the Japanese context as even the supposedly left-wing press respects the emperor and never calls for abolishing the system, while making some gestures toward modernity by avoiding the most kowtowing honorifics. For all their disagreements, I guess neither the left nor the right wants to see a King Horie.

Considering that the US president is fast turning into a King George III style administration, I think America could lead the way to stripping the president of some of his formal power and making Nancy Pelosi the Prime Minister.
Munro Ferguson
February 24, 2009
6:01 am
"Considering that the US president is fast turning into a King George III style administration, I think America could lead the way to stripping the president of some of his formal power and making Nancy Pelosi the Prime Minister."

Lol! Well said.
Sejo
February 24, 2009
9:54 am
Our Man, I'm definitely a republican. As you obviously know, a communist party was widely popular in my country and from that party came my relatives: my father being a leader in the unions and my grandfather being an early days antifascist with one of the longest inprisonmente sentences in the regime's history. So, while a liberal or libertarian, in the Italian political spectrum I'm on the left. I wouldn't call me a monarchist. The Costitution hasn't worked: we're still a divided country, where the fascist bias against the Allies and the Partisans is strong. Call me, if you want, cynical but I think that a super partes head of State would have helped and so would today.
A 'today' in which – let alone the new Depression – the Republic is giving away its monopoly of the force to small groups of (still) unarmed men patrolling the streets; in which the communities are increasingly isolated from one another and suspicious of their neighbours; in which new Middle Ages are growing and no one is looking to: maybe because we're the country of Sun, pizza and what else.
A crown would have solved the economics problems? No. Not even the Usa government can: it just lends money to the firms that first caused it. But probably a crown would have stopped – or slowed down – the growing anarchy. Probably.
Our Man in Abiko
February 24, 2009
3:26 pm
Interesting comments. Wrong about Germany? Maybe, but methinks, just like the "utopians" you deride Curzon, you are in love with your own ideal - the world according to whatever that fella's name is whom you've devoted this blog to. Fair dinkum though, tis a good blog.

Sejo, Our Man's with you at the baricades - his great-great uncle (is there such a thing?) was the first socialist mayor of Leicester and marched with Ramsay MacDonald and the hunger marchers on Parliament in 1905. Did get caught with his hand in the till of public finances, but never shagged his relatives as royals like to do. Our Man definitely prefers to dip a Garibaldi than a Bourbon in his tea.
ComingAnarchy.com » From Monarchy to Chaos to Totalitarianism, Part 2: Coming Anarchy in Nepal
March 11, 2009
3:01 am
[...] In part 1 of this mini-series posted a few weeks ago, I wrote that the end of monarchy was frequently followed by a breakdown in order, followed by totalitarian evil. To distil the idea into a sentence: once a monarch is gone, a stabilizing force in the political system disappears, and is frequently followed by disorganized and chaotic democracy, followed in turn by an order-restoring but totalitarian force. This pattern has been seen in countries such as 18th century France, 19th century Russia, and 20th century Cambodia, among others. [...]
Erik van Luxzenburg
March 11, 2009
10:21 am
An accurate historical overview and vision. Once more I become more convinced I support the monarchy in the Netherlands! Beatrix rules us for 25 succesful years and the heir Alexander (most probably future King William IV) remains popular. Removing them from their throne means different political factions will clash!