Friday, March 6, 2015

When Is A Country Not A Country? (usually when it's a republic)

Being a pan-monarchist can be extremely frustrating. At least one reason, but a major one, for my frustration at least is the extent to which the proven viability of monarchy is so blatantly self-evident around the world and some republicans will even acknowledge it but yet none seem able to make the simple connection that the monarchy is the one common factor and thus should be something to take seriously. The biggest issue in the news lately has been the problems in the Middle East. Everyone can see that the monarchies have been the most stable regimes there and when it comes to confronting the ISIS terrorist gang, no world leader has won more praise than the King of Jordan. The growing concern about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons should also drive home the fact, long known by monarchists, that the overthrow of the Shah was the birthday of the modern terrorist movement. Yemen is in chaos and it all stems back to a war between royalists and republicans, each backed by regional monarchies and republics, which the royalists lost and we see the result. Iraq is another example of how bad things become when a monarchy falls while the monarchies that remain, whether one likes them or not, have at least been stable.

Likewise, in Asia, monarchies have a record of providing a sense of calm and order even when social or political problems have caused chaos. Not a few foreign observers remarked how even when Japan was going through a rapid turnover in governments (even by Japanese standards) there was no loss of confidence and no panic on the part of the public or foreign investors. Even an American commentator on Chinese state television had to admit that the Emperor played a vital part in explaining this. His presence reassured people that, no matter how many governments and politicians would come and go, everything would be okay; Japan as a country remained stable. Recently, there has probably been no better example of this than the Kingdom of Thailand which has often had a chaotic political history. In fact, chaos in the government of Thailand can seem to be the norm rather than the exception. Recently there was another military takeover of the Thai government, something far from unprecedented in Thai history, which came about due to rampant political corruption and finally acts of terrorism by the faction previously in power. However, in spite of all this turmoil, Thailand, as a country, is perfectly stable. Life is going on as normal and undoubtedly the King’s endorsement of the military administration has played a part in that. In the past, aside from being a powerful symbol, the King has been relied on to intervene in politics in times of crisis to bring about calm, reconciliation and a return to normalcy.

Perhaps it is due to the situation being hard to put into words that more people do not see what is right in front of their eyes. The unusual thing about life in Thailand, for example, is that there is nothing unusual about it. To the south, in the Kingdom of Malaysia there has been, relatively recently, a great deal of trouble but, again, it has not brought about any crisis of confidence among the Malaysian people or foreigners. A monarch, by their very nature, and the living link with history that a monarchy provides gives a country that intangible, hard-to-describe “something” that helps people keep things in perspective. It is a stabilizing force, even when taking no action at all, and just by being there can keep things within a traditional framework that allows for change to happen without getting out of control. Moreover, in a way that is also frustratingly hard to put in to words, it represents a means of organic growth for countries as opposed to harsh, artificial regimes that destroy countries by trying to re-make them according to some utopian ideology.

One of the largest examples today of a place where this, sadly, did not happen is China. As a country, a culture, a people, China existed for thousands of years. There were good times and bad times but the “national spirit” for lack of a better word, was preserved. Even when China was conquered and ruled by non-Han peoples such as the Mongol Yuan Dynasty or the Manchu Qing Dynasty, it was in accordance with the traditional way that change happened in China and, as a result, even the conquerors became “conquered” themselves by the Chinese culture. Then, there were the events of 1911 when, for the first time, totally foreign ideas, institutions and values were forced upon China in an attempt to re-make the country into something totally different from what it had been for thousands of years. The Mongols and Manchus came to China and adopted Chinese ways. China changed them far more than they changed China. However, with the birth of the Republic of China, the new rulers of the country tried to change China based on totally foreign concepts. Ultimately, this led to the importation of political divisions from abroad, a gruesome civil war and a new regime based on the utopian ideology of a 19th-Century German-Jew that ultimately resulted in the Cultural Revolution that declared war on all things traditionally and fundamentally Chinese.

So, China was a country, a culture and a people but suddenly became something artificial. It became, not a country but an ideology. Eventually, after millions died of starvation, disease and poverty, this ideology was proven to be moronic and so, while never officially renouncing it, China became what it is today; essentially a business. It is even run like a business, with one all-powerful CEO chosen by a board of directors known to the public as the Chinese Communist Party. And, unfortunately, China is far from unique. A similar story can be told in a multitude of countries all around the world. Numerous other Asian countries fit the pattern, most African countries fit the pattern, Russia, even South America where, without any direct foreign intervention, countries broke away from Spain and tried to set up their artificial countries based on theories that seemed to work elsewhere but which were ultimately shown to be unworkable in Latin America. What about the United States? It is easy to misunderstand the United States and many have. It is an artificial country but, although plenty of Americans would not want to admit this, aside from a great deal of plain good luck, much of the success of America has been due to the fact that the “American Revolution” was not really a revolution. They didn’t try to remake society, they didn’t really change much at all but basically just took the existing British model of government that was natural to them and tweaked it a little bit to suit their republican sentiments. It was not a jarring break and (unless you were a loyalist) life went on pretty much the same as before.

This stands in stark contrast to, for example, Mexico which, not by sheer coincidence, has not been so successful a country. When Mexico first became independent, as a monarchy, in 1821 there was no official constitution (the Plan of Iguala serving) and the law was not drastically different from what it had been during the Spanish era. In fact, one thing that prompted conservative Mexicans to go along with independence were the changes being made in the “constitution” of Spain. We will never know how that would have worked out as it was not given a chance, as we know, with the first emperor, Iturbide, being deposed and later shot. The first official Mexican constitution was the Constitution of 1824. This was a very federalist constitution that was heavily influenced by that of the United States, granting considerable powers to the states. However, not surprisingly, what worked for British-Americans in the United States did not work so well in Mexico and it was soon reduced to a dead-letter by a succession of dictators.

Next, came the Constitution of 1857, most associated with the tenure of President Benito Juarez. Though power was more centralized, in some ways it was even more like that of the United States than the 1824 version. However, it further broke with Mexican culture and traditions by being so anti-clerical. It was the first constitution to make Mexico a secular country and to place restrictions on the Catholic Church. Thus it became a bone of contention, leading to civil war and ultimately the restoration of the monarchy under Emperor Maximilian. Juarez himself violated the terms of the 1857 constitution on numerous occasions and finally it was found to be unacceptable after the country fell back into dictatorship. It was then that Mexico adopted its current constitution, the Constitution of 1917. Even more restrictive of religion, very leftist in character, it did bring an end to the era of dictatorships in Mexico but replaced it with the era of ideological tyranny with decades of effective one-party rule under the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party). Oddly enough, to show how widespread this problem is, this constitution which was not even compatible with Mexico, ended up being the inspiration for those of the Weimar Republic and the first post-Tsarist constitution in Russia. And, of course, we remember what resounding “successes” those regimes were.

Contrarily, those countries which have retained their monarchies have a far different record. They change and evolve of course and fare good or bad depending on the decisions they make just as republics do. However, as long as the overall structure of the monarchy remains, so that these changes and decisions occur within a traditional framework, moderation remains more prevalent than fanaticism and bad decisions are more easily, and perhaps even more importantly, more peacefully able to be corrected. And unless anyone thinks that other institutions, besides the monarchy, are the real determining factor, there are two easy examples to disprove those who think all depends on the constitution. The United Kingdom, as most know, has no official, written constitution and yet has been a more stable and prosperous country, historically, than most countries that do. The monarchy has served to smooth out the difficulties that in other lands would have led to armed revolts or coups. Somewhat similarly, the State of Japan has a constitution which represents a rather drastic break with their national traditions and political culture, made a time when calm and impartial decisions were hardly possible. Yet, though I personally think Japan would be well served to discard it and have another or revise it significantly, Japan under that constitution rose from ruin and defeat to be the second most wealthy country in the world. Even the most ardent republicans have had to admit that this was due in large part to the retention of the Emperor.

France is, on the other hand, an example of a country that was torn, violently, from its traditional roots and while seemingly a fairly prosperous country, had really never recovered from that. The Kingdom of France existed for about a thousand years and while there were certainly good times and bad times the overall structure of the country was maintained and even when things became really bad (be it religious wars or English domination), France always bounced back to attain new heights. Since the revolution, however, France has had the restored monarchy, a popular monarchy, two empires, a pseudo-fascistic state and five republics. Add to that the fact that most did not go peacefully into that dark night and consider how divided France still is today. More to the point, of the problems France has today, virtually all of them can be traced back to the revolution and the, so-far, failed efforts by the French to come to terms with it. Much of the recent internal turmoil has been due to issues involving French Muslims. How did this come about? For one thing, the French Revolution shattered the place of Christianity in France and it has never really fully come back and taken root, secularism became acceptable and so an alien religion like Islam has little competition. More broadly, the very ideals of the French Revolution have made it very hard for France to combat disloyal and even terrorist elements in their midst without looking like hypocrites. And this is nothing new as the speed with which France replaced the First Republic with the First Empire and the numerous republics and monarchies since has plainly shown that the ideals of the French Revolution were recognized to be unworkable, utopian nonsense fairly early on.

This is all the more tragic because, at the time of the revolution, King Louis XVI was in the process of making needed changes on his own which were making use of existing, traditional French institutions (some of which had fallen into disuse) and which, I at least certainly have no doubt, would have had a lasting and positive influence on the country. Of course, as with anything, there is no simple solution that will negate the fallibility of mankind or make one immune from the effects of bad decisions. However, when considering the overall success of Scandinavia, the Low Countries and the Anglosphere it seems that what detrimental changes have occurred, have been forced to happen rather slowly, incrementally, over time and the structures remain in place to (we hope) see these problems corrected. In these countries, the institutions that have grown up naturally, paramount being the monarchy, are generally accepted as a permanent fixture of the political landscape. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for every monarchy, such as Spain, where there was a jarring break with the past and a persistence on the part of many to desire a return to republicanism for a third time, despite the objective failure of the first two attempts (the second being quite gruesome as well).

Some may disagree, and this is only opinion, but when considering the subject it does seem to me that there is a distinct, if hard to precisely put into words, difference between a radical, violent change, as with a revolution, and natural changes that have occurred within a traditional framework. Additionally, it seems that countries which have taken this route have the greater record of success behind them. Even when things have gone to the extent of, for example, the so-called Glorious Revolution or American Revolution, these things were really not all that revolutionary. There was nothing like the September Massacres or “New Soviet Man” or the Cultural Revolution that came out of those (to my mind) unfortunate events. Countries that attempt to deny themselves, their own past, their own nature, never seem to truly prosper and, as is the case with so many today, they become republics which are not really “countries” at all anymore but simply an ideological camp, a massive social or public works network or simply a big business, not, what has been considered a natural, organic nation as understood through most of human history.


  1. I very much agree with your views. I agree it is quite frustrating knowing the solution but having others refusing to accept it. Democracy is a failure and if you look close enough at republicanism you can very easily see the hand of satin pushing it forward, fortunately satin can never destroy the Heavenly Kingdom but unfortunately he has destroyed most of the Earthly Kingdoms. Our answer lies in hard work, dedication, and prayer. I shall pray for you and your work as well as Monarchy and those that advocate such.

  2. I have been studying traditional language, thought and society for years, and I have been struggling for a long time to come up with an answer to the question how traditional diversity around the world, as manifested in languages, cultures, and ethnicities, can be preserved in republics. I finally reached the conclusion that monarchy is the best and only true guardian of traditional diversity (be it linguistic, cultural, or ethnic).

    Furthermore, I began to see more and more clearly that republics can only act as destroyers of traditional diversity. Somehow monarchies allowed traditional diversity (bet it linguistic, cultural, or ethnic) to thrive, while republics have often actively sought to destroy traditional languages (dialects included), cultures, and ethnicities in favour of a single language, culture, and ethnicity.

    To be fair, republican multiculturalists, unlike other republicans, still have the intention to help traditional minority languages, cultures, and ethnicities, but they are often doing more harm than good. Monarchy is the only system that cares about both traditional majorities and minorities, and it does not have the inherent tendency to level traditional diversity (be it linguistic, cultural, or ethnic) as republics do.

    Although this notion is oft abused by multiculturalists for their republican agenda, I believe that the destruction of (traditional) diversity would be a great loss to humanity. I have often thought that, as the garudian of the traditional world, it might be a good idea for monarchy to actively champion the protection of traditional diversity. Multicultural republicans claim they are the champions of diversity, but they are - at least to my mind - little more than destroyers of diversity.

    Republicans of all stripes, I have noticed, have a tendency to claim for themselves whatever traditionally belongs to monarchy. Monarchy allowed "diversity" (so to speak) to thrive as it did not oppose the organic "evolution" that led to the emergence of this diversity (be it linguistic, cultural, or ethnic).

    Multicultural republicans, with their (at least to my mind) absurd ideas, advocate accepting and embracing "diversity" in a sense of introducing totally foreign languages, cultures, and ethnicities into one's native country.

    I used to be blind to the reality that multiculturalists pose as advocates of preservation of diversity, while they are really those who argue for introducing foreign elements into republican countries. They feel no loyalty at all to the history of the languages, cultures, and etnicities of the countries into which they want to introduce these foreign elements.

    This led me away from multiculturalism, which is essentially an ideology that serves the hidden republican agenda of homogenising the world while it draws on people's altruism and goodwill. I for one would like to see the world's traditional languages, cultures, and ethnicities to be preserved. Again, I believe that the destruction of (traditional) diversity is truly a loss to humanity.

    Multicultural republicans, who do criticise communists and other republicans for their utterly unwelcome contributions to the destruction of human diversity, portray republics as the champion of protection of diversity, but republics, multicultural ones included, are actually the destroyers of diversity. Monarchies, in contrast to republics, although monarchies are by no means free from human imperfection, allowed diversity to flourish.

    Diversity is the legacy of monarchy, and republics really have no use for this legacy which thrived and organically "evolved" under monarchy.

    These are the conclusions that I have reached after years of study, and I would be delighted to read MadMonarchist's views on the issues that I have raised.

    I invite people to correct me if anything that I have said is obviously wrong.

    1. I have talked about this before. The republicans who trumpet multi-culturalism are most often the biggest plague on actual diversity the world has ever seen. Monarchies, which grow up naturally, are naturally diverse, reflecting the history and culture of their people. Republics, on the other hand, being artificial, are fairly uniform and even those who claim to love diversity usually end up trying to eliminate all diversity to absolute minimum or at least only try to preserve the cultural uniqueness of some, like minorities they pity and look down on, while actively destroying that of the majority. Neither is a good thing. One of my biggest complaints about the modern world is how depressingly uniform it is.

    2. Hi there. I've read your comment with interest as I myself am concerned with issues of ethnicity, culture and linguistics.
      I'm not a formally trained academic in anyway, and the thoughts I share here come from my shallow understanding of the above listed issues, and I hope to be enlightened by your take on my views.
      Nevertheless, here I go:
      Regarding the problem of diversity (be it ethnic, linguistic or cultural), it is of my understanding that it is not as much a function of politics, rather than that of economics.
      As you mentioned, diversity flourished under the reign of monarchy, and wilted under the regime of republicanism.
      One could draw the correlation between the mode of governance and diversity. Though I would hesitate to draw a causation.
      It is of my understanding that isolation is the wellspring of diversity, that little pockets of humanity, far removed from others by distances unconquerable by the technology of their time, soon find themselves developing unique dialects, languages, ethnicities, identities, etc.
      And when industrialisation and globalisation came about, with the improvements in accessibility and connectivity, isolation became a thing of the past. As the barriers between peoples broke down, lingua francas developed, which demanded that certain languages had preeminence over others.
      The popular media, I would say, is a good example of this. It is through the economic dominance of America that spread the English language across the world through its movies and internet culture. Could it be that the decline of diversity, caused by the shrinking of the world, simply coincided with the historical trend of the republicanising of monarchies?
      Of course, as I mentioned, I am but a casual observer , and wish that I can deepen my understanding of the relationship between government and diversity.
      To that end, I await your reply.

  3. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. I would have liked to elaborate on the points that you made and I entirely agree with, but I have to continue working now. As to your last point which is very important, the modern world is indeed depressingly uniform, and I wish to save whatever is left of the world's heritage and to see restored whatever can be restored. What ISIS recently did to those monuments is practically what the republicans are doing every single day.

  4. I think that the death of monarchy was a result of its inability to accept new ideas. The inheritors of the tradition of monarchy must evolve like our andestors could not. Secularism must be accepted so the people are more loyal to the king, not their own faith. Not male primogenitor succession must be adopted to regain the people's confidence in herditary monarchy. When regainin the glory of the past, a warriors sword must be replaced with newer metals. The future is the lessons learned by the past with situations that exist today. By the way, in America at least, I love immigration. It is how we gain the ideas of the world make them American, and almost all of the many amazing things in my life would be forfeit without immigration, including my existence in the nation.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...