Politicians Are a Good Argument for Monarchy

Recently I tried to highlight the absurdity of elected politicians as the best possible argument for monarchy and was rather surprised at the number of people who claimed not to understand the point I was making. I was asked again and again what a bunch of ridiculous politicians had to do with the argument of republicanism versus monarchy. I also, apparently, confused some poor souls by including the likes of Tony Blair or Gordon Brown amongst the examples as these men were both from a monarchial system. Well, allow me to try to explain the point. My starting point for this tactic was the fact that I have developed the habit of answering people who ask me why royals “deserve” their position and finery by asking, “Why do you think politicians deserve more?” It seems to me that is often a potent ‘weapon’ left unused in the monarchist arsenal. Many republics think that royals don’t “deserve” their status, their palaces or yachts. They think royals should have less but these republicans are seldom called upon to explain why they think politicians deserve more. In my experience, the dreary, ridiculous and at times downright stupid or even wicked reputation of politicians has made many otherwise lukewarm people come down on the side of monarchy when the question comes up.

It is amazing how so many people in the world are passionately loyal to the republic as an ideal while widely despising politicians in general. Bizarre as that is, the low opinion most people have for the vast majority of politicians is one of the most valuable weapons in the monarchist arsenal. Politicians are inherently divisive figures, even the most beloved and highly praised amongst them. In the United States, I doubt any president (certainly in my lifetime) has been so idolized, praised and celebrated as President Obama. Yet, roughly half the country not only does not revere him but considers him the worst president ever. President Ronald Reagan, for another example, has become near-deified by the right since his death yet in his own time, popular though he was, the left considered him a senile buffoon at best and a dangerous warmonger at worst. Franklin D. Roosevelt was popular enough to be effectively elected President-for-life yet there were people like my grandfather who considered him a disaster, that his “New Deal” was the “Raw Deal”. Politicians can only ever seem to be adored by half the populace at best or despised by all at the worst. In Britain, Margaret Thatcher is still loved by many Britons but hated by others. Politicians are simply naturally divisive and, when real power is at stake, they will not hesitate to intentionally divide the public to advance their careers.

I know, many people don’t seem to like it when I advance this argument, saying that it is somehow unfair to promote monarchy simply by saying it is better than the alternative. The bottom line though, is that it IS better than the alternative and that is the world we live in. It is worth the effort, I think, to point out to people just how unspeakably ugly republican politics can be contrast that to the beautiful tranquility of a monarchy with a monarch who can be the one pristine patch of a government otherwise devastated by scorched earth political campaigns. There will, of course, always be mud-slinging malcontents but in most monarchies at least these are a minority when it comes to the sovereign. Take the United Kingdom as an example. Most people like the Queen very much, some admire her and are greatly devoted to her and others, at least, see her as a benign and benevolent figure who does no harm to anyone and does a great deal of good for many people. She is a respected, admirable figure on the world stage. Now, compare this with the current presidential election in America in which the partisans of the President recently accused his opponent of practically killing someone. When republicans in Great Britain say that they want a republic; is this the sort of ugliness they wish to share?

Actions have consequences (how many times has that come up) and just because something may not be the “best” argument, does not make it an invalid one. I doubt most monarchists are utopians and I at least will freely admit that there has never been a perfect government and every monarchy that does or has existed has had their share of faults and imperfections. However, republicans should take a long hard look at what they are getting into before scrapping centuries of tradition and a tried and tested form of government that has worked perfectly well. One reason I could never be a utopian is the fact that humanity so often repeats the same mistakes and refuses to see facts that are right in front of them. Would the people of France who supported the Revolution have done so if they could have foreseen the “Reign of Terror” that was to follow? I doubt it, and yet, time after time a majority have returned to republicanism, closed their eyes to the facts and embraced the myth of the Revolution. In a more controversial example, how many countries have condemned the United States for intervening in their affairs who have themselves called on America for help in times of crisis, over and over again? On the whole, humanity seems fairly thick to me.

In the time of the American or French Revolutions people could at least plead ignorance. There were no other major republics in the world to compare themselves with. But after that, royalists could have posed the question, “Is the chance of a George Washington worth the risk of a Robespierre?” Today the argument is even more compelling as there have been far, far more republican leaders of the Robespierre type, many of them far worse. Additionally, most people should not have to be reminded of the likes of Mao, Stalin or Hitler to see the danger in republicanism. Everyday politicians should do the job on their own with their lies, pandering, nastiness and scandals. However, it still seems to me that the divisiveness of politicians is a better argument than even most of those. A moral failing on the part of a national leader often harms only him/herself. It looks bad but doesn’t usually harm the country as a whole itself. A country is harmed, however, when politicians so wantonly turn people against each other for their own benefit. Anything that can be used to divide people has and is being used by politicians the world over to divide them, from race to religion to how much you have in the bank. Particularly in the western world, there doesn’t seem to be much to unite people to begin with these days and politicians actively work to make existing divisions even worse by telling different groups of people that “the other guy” is their enemy.

At times it is necessary to put the grander arguments aside to reach the hoi polloi who like to think themselves practical creatures (even if they are not). And the fact is that one can have a monarch or a president and most presidents are nothing to write home about and you will immediately encounter resistance from some quarter when potential presidents are named. If politicians as a group are so despised, why reward them with an even grander office and, in some cases, vastly more powers -more than most monarchs could dream of having? The simple truth is that monarchs are prominent individuals. Everyone in the English-speaking world knows who Queen Elizabeth II is and everyone in the Spanish-speaking world knows who King Juan Carlos is. Republican leaders, on the other hand, are well known only if they hold powers that monarchs would never be allowed to have or if they get caught behaving badly. Everyone in the world knows the who Queen of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc is but no one knows who the President of Germany or Italy is. They know who the chancellor is because she exercises political power and most knew who Berlusconi was simply because of the scandals attached to him.

The bottom line is, republicans should be forced to answer this question. It may not be the best argument, but it is a valid one. Anyone who wishes to change the structure of government should have to demonstrate how that change will be an improvement. If they want to have a president instead of a monarch, they should have to start naming some names of who they have in mind. The reason they don’t do this on their own is because they know it is a losing proposition. It has been argued that the primary reason the republican referendum in Australia failed was because there was no clear picture of what sort of system would replace the monarchy and most people, even if not avowed monarchists, decided that what they had was too good to risk on an unknown. British republicans, for example, should have to answer the question; will it be a President Brown or a President Cameron? Either answer could only increase support for the monarchy. And as for those in Canada or Australia who wish to make the Governor-General the President and keep everything otherwise as it is now, the fact should be pointed out that most people in the world have no idea who the Governor-General of Canada is, not terribly many probably know who Stephen Harper is but everyone, from America to Africa to Asia knows who the Queen is. Politicians can truly be one of the best weapons in the monarchist arsenal.