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giving benefits to undeserving aristocrats at the expense of hardworking, ordinary people, with no basis other than outdated history.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
Alfred Russel Wallace
February 22, 2009
11:05 pm
Curzon
February 23, 2009
1:02 am
ARW: That's to be addressed in part 3.
McKellar
February 23, 2009
2:23 am
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
Curzon
February 23, 2009
3:11 am
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
The above "representative five" are just some key examples. I could go on and on...
Sejo
February 23, 2009
6:37 am
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
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
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
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
Lexington Green
February 23, 2009
7:03 pm
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
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
Adamu
February 24, 2009
3:48 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.
Munro Ferguson
February 24, 2009
6:01 am
Lol! Well said.
Sejo
February 24, 2009
9:54 am
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
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
Erik van Luxzenburg
March 11, 2009
10:21 am