A very insightful essay! I particularly appreciated -- because it was a new idea for me -- that the Founding Fathers' clever focus on a monarch as our oppressor, rather than on a government, useful as it was at the time, has distorted Americans' understanding of the potential contribution of a constitutional monarchy to peaceful democratic social evolution.
It was the great sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset who noted that of the dozen European countries which were democracies at the time of his writing, in the late 1950's, ten were constitutional monarchies.
Some people in countries which have thrown off their monarchies have taken note of what they may have lost, and even hope for their return. An especially poignant case is Ethiopia, which should be leding Africa into modernity, but which is now consumed in a terrible civil war. [https://ethiopanorama.com/?p=154733]
And it's worth nothing that Winston Churchill wanted to preserve the German monarchy after WWI, putting the Kaiser's nephew on the throne. What might we have avoided had his will prevailed!
When the quasi-fascist Spanish dictator Franco died, the Spanish monarchy was restored, along with democracy. And not long after, when ultra-right Guardia Civil officers tried to make a coup, the Spanish king Juan Carlos went on to television and condemned it. And that was the end of that. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Spanish_coup_d'etat_attempt]
What a shame that the French, Russian and Chinese monarchs were too stupid to see which way the wind was blowing, and adapt accordingly!
And as for us Americans ... the time may come when we wish we had our own, home-grown, Elizabeth.
Those are some good thoughts. Though I should make one thing clear - I am not arguing that constitutional monarchies are, ipso facto, better than republics, only that they deserve respect in cultures that have a tradition of constitutional monarchy. History gives us many fine examples of republics that shone forth in a monarchy-dominated world: think of the Roman Republic, medieval Iceland, Novgorod, Venice, and Genoa, Switzerland, the United Provinces, and the early United States.
Essentially, I agree with the Burkean notions that there isn't a single best form of government for every spot on the globe, and that systems that evolve organically and gradually in a specific cultural setting are generally better than those that are built all at once in an explosion of idealism. So it isn't surprising that, back in 1950, Europe's constitutional monarchies were its freest countries, since having a royal house that had successfully adapted itself to the modern world was a sign that a country knew how to balance continuity and change.
Yes, I agree on the idea that there is no 'one size fits all' for the human species at its current state of development. The American Revolution was a sort of exception to the rule about slow organic growth, as it had to be. We were very fortunate in having well-educated leaders who were also successful within their society. I say 'sort of' an exception, because the colonies were used to 'local republicanism', since they were by and large self-governing in local affairs.
This raises an issue worth thinking about: looking at the sad state of post-colonial Africa, what would have been the best way -- from the point of view of the welfare of the Africans -- for decolonization to proceed? Just walking out didn't work out very well. As in revolutionary France, power got seized by the educated minority, drunk on extravagant ideas -- which quickly degenerated into a kleptocracy.
So perhaps a period, lasting a generation or two, in which they become 'locally self-governing', with the colonizing powers receding step by step -- with a big push for basic education and the acquisition of skills along the way.
A very insightful essay! I particularly appreciated -- because it was a new idea for me -- that the Founding Fathers' clever focus on a monarch as our oppressor, rather than on a government, useful as it was at the time, has distorted Americans' understanding of the potential contribution of a constitutional monarchy to peaceful democratic social evolution.
It was the great sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset who noted that of the dozen European countries which were democracies at the time of his writing, in the late 1950's, ten were constitutional monarchies.
Some people in countries which have thrown off their monarchies have taken note of what they may have lost, and even hope for their return. An especially poignant case is Ethiopia, which should be leding Africa into modernity, but which is now consumed in a terrible civil war. [https://ethiopanorama.com/?p=154733]
And it's worth nothing that Winston Churchill wanted to preserve the German monarchy after WWI, putting the Kaiser's nephew on the throne. What might we have avoided had his will prevailed!
When the quasi-fascist Spanish dictator Franco died, the Spanish monarchy was restored, along with democracy. And not long after, when ultra-right Guardia Civil officers tried to make a coup, the Spanish king Juan Carlos went on to television and condemned it. And that was the end of that. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Spanish_coup_d'etat_attempt]
What a shame that the French, Russian and Chinese monarchs were too stupid to see which way the wind was blowing, and adapt accordingly!
And as for us Americans ... the time may come when we wish we had our own, home-grown, Elizabeth.
Doug,
Those are some good thoughts. Though I should make one thing clear - I am not arguing that constitutional monarchies are, ipso facto, better than republics, only that they deserve respect in cultures that have a tradition of constitutional monarchy. History gives us many fine examples of republics that shone forth in a monarchy-dominated world: think of the Roman Republic, medieval Iceland, Novgorod, Venice, and Genoa, Switzerland, the United Provinces, and the early United States.
Essentially, I agree with the Burkean notions that there isn't a single best form of government for every spot on the globe, and that systems that evolve organically and gradually in a specific cultural setting are generally better than those that are built all at once in an explosion of idealism. So it isn't surprising that, back in 1950, Europe's constitutional monarchies were its freest countries, since having a royal house that had successfully adapted itself to the modern world was a sign that a country knew how to balance continuity and change.
Yes, I agree on the idea that there is no 'one size fits all' for the human species at its current state of development. The American Revolution was a sort of exception to the rule about slow organic growth, as it had to be. We were very fortunate in having well-educated leaders who were also successful within their society. I say 'sort of' an exception, because the colonies were used to 'local republicanism', since they were by and large self-governing in local affairs.
This raises an issue worth thinking about: looking at the sad state of post-colonial Africa, what would have been the best way -- from the point of view of the welfare of the Africans -- for decolonization to proceed? Just walking out didn't work out very well. As in revolutionary France, power got seized by the educated minority, drunk on extravagant ideas -- which quickly degenerated into a kleptocracy.
So perhaps a period, lasting a generation or two, in which they become 'locally self-governing', with the colonizing powers receding step by step -- with a big push for basic education and the acquisition of skills along the way.