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

By: Erik van Luxzenburg

Erik van Luxzenburg — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:21:55 +0000

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!

By: ComingAnarchy.com » From Monarchy to Chaos to Totalitarianism, Part 2: Coming Anarchy in Nepal

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:01:08 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: Our Man in Abiko

Our Man in Abiko — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:26:16 +0000

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.

By: Sejo

Sejo — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:54:05 +0000

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 â�� let alone the new Depression â�� 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 â�� or slowed down â�� the growing anarchy. Probably.

By: Munro Ferguson

Munro Ferguson — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:01:17 +0000

“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.

By: Adamu

Adamu — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:48:07 +0000

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.

By: Just An Australian

Just An Australian — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:34:06 +0000

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)

By: Alec

Alec — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:23:57 +0000

“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.

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:03:18 +0000

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.

By: Adrian

Adrian — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:16:01 +0000

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.

By: Curzon

Curzon — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:16:00 +0000

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!

By: Just An Australian

Just An Australian — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:01:34 +0000

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).

By: Our Man in Abiko

Our Man in Abiko — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:38:34 +0000

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?

By: Sejo

Sejo — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 06:37:59 +0000

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.

By: Curzon

Curzon — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 03:18:03 +0000

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…

By: Curzon

Curzon — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 03:11:28 +0000

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.

By: Our Man in Abiko

Our Man in Abiko — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 03:05:29 +0000

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.

By: McKellar

McKellar — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:23:34 +0000

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?

By: Curzon

Curzon — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:02:30 +0000

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.

By: Alfred Russel Wallace

Alfred Russel Wallace — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:05:39 +0000

Is this a grizzly prediction for Lesotho, Morocco and Swaziland??

By: mihnea

mihnea — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:11:26 +0000

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.