Are Constitutional Monarchies More Stable?

[lpetrich]

Then discussing who might want to support hereditary leadership. Nobles / aristocrats have the same motive as monarchs for making their positions hereditary, and they would naturally support a fellow hereditary leader, even if not necessarily whichever one is currently ruling.

Opponents of hereditary privilege for leadership are often also opponents of hereditary privilege for nobilities, as is evident in the thoughts and actions of the American, French, and Russian revolutionaries. This is another reason for nobilities to line up behind monarchies.

Priesthoods may also have an interest in hereditary leadership, even if not necessarily whoever is currently in power. It may mean reliable support for them in exchange for the priesthood blessing them with assurance that the rulers of the Universe are on their side.

BSG then quotes this about Imperial China: “a perpetual see-saw between the power of the emperor to pursue his own policy through his own personal instrumentalities, and the power of either his relatives and/or the palace officials, and the central bureaucracy to pursue their own. At times the emperor is the active ruler, at others it is his entourage or officialdom that rules.”

The central bureaucracy of China was chosen by competitive examinations, involving familiarity with the classics of Chinese literature. But education in them was expensive, and it made for a de facto nobility.

"The bureaucracy was entirely happy that the country should be ruled in principle by a hereditary emperor; it just believed that the emperor should in practice do what he was told by the bureaucracy."

Then mentioning palace eunuchs, men who were neutered so that it would be safe for them to guard the an emperor's concubines, secondary wives. They were often fervently loyal to the emperors.

 

[lpetrich]

Then discussing ideology. "Even for the tiny minority whose statements have been recorded in some form and survived, we do not know how far their expressed views are what they really believed or what they wanted others to believe or what they wanted others to believe that they believed."

Inheritance? Leadership may not have been seen as much different from craft knowledge, something often hereditary in premodern societies. A woodworker was often the son of a woodworker, a metalworker of a metalworker, a potter of a potter, etc. Likewise, peasants were usually descended from other peasants.

"Closely related to premodern views on the importance of inheritance is the almost universal belief in the inevitability and rightness of hierarchy in society." - like Aristotle arguing about slavery that some people are naturally fit to be owners of slaves and others to be slaves themselves.

David Graeber: “Wherever there are kings, interregna tend to be seen as periods of chaos and violence, times when the very cosmological order is thrown into disarray.”

There is a form of government that rejects hierarchy: democracy.

For over 2,000 years in the West, informed opinion was virtually unanimous that democracy, a form of government in which hierarchy had been abandoned for equality, was little better than mob rule. So no one in their right mind, it was thought, except the low and the ignorant and those who wanted to take advantage of them, would wish to abandon hierarchy in society.

"Hierarchies are never completely rigid. Often in principle and always in practice they have to permit at least some social mobility to allow the talented to succeed and to recognize their success." Then mentioning war, professions both religious and secular, and commerce.

 

[lpetrich]

Then getting into religion. "It is an almost universal attribute of monarchy that the king is believed to have a special relationship with supernatural powers that is beneficial, essential even, to the society he rules."

Ritual powers - "For most of history monarchy was supported by a belief system that viewed the world as governed by supernatural powers that had to be appeased and monarchy as a form of government in which the ruler was not only favoured by these powers, but uniquely qualified to intercede with them on behalf of society as a whole.

"For example, the pharaoh’s correct performance of his ritual duties was responsible for theannual rise of the Nile, on which Egypt’s crops depended." - similar things were universal outside of Christian and Muslim monarchies, with China's emperors doing such rites until the end of China's monarchy in 1912. But in Islam, some Umayyad caliphs could supposedly make rain, and in Christianity, some English and French monarchs could supposedly cure some diseases with  Royal touch

Kings as descendants of gods - China, Greece, Japan, ... lots of places until recent centuries. Mostly absent from Abrahamic religions, however. Alexander the Great presented himself as a son of Zeus, for instance, and the generals who succeeded him presented themselves as sons of gods.

Kings as gods - very heretical in Abrahamic religions, with their single big god, but common in polytheism ... lots of places until recent centuries. Egyptian pharaohs, for instance, and Alexander the Great presented himself as a god.

Kings as appointed by gods - the Divine Right of Kings - very common in Abrahamic religions: the kings of ancient Israel, and many Christian and Muslim ones. The Shia - Sunni split was over having a leader who was descended from Prophet Mohammed: Shias yes, Sunnis no. Outside of the Abrahamic religions, early Mesopotamian monarchs presented themselves as appointed by gods, as did Achaemenid kings of Persia, and also Chinese emperors with their "Mandate of Heaven".

These four features are not mutually exclusive, and a monarch may claim all four.

 

[lpetrich]

Demonstration effects: "Part of the explanation for the rise of hereditary rule lies in the example provided by other societies." Like seeing other societies with hereditary leaders.

Given how successful monarchy has been over all the millennia of large-scale societies, why has it been in such steep decline over the last few centuries?

BSG notes what that earlier paper did: improved technology, including improved travel and improved long-distance communication.

Urbanization was also a part of it. He quotes: “Before the nineteenth century, the disenfranchised sections of society were scattered in rural areas; therefore, we may think of the threat of revolution as less severe because it was very difficult for them to organize. Therefore, the combination of increased urbanization and factory employment may have been a key factor in initiating the wave of democratization in nineteenth-century Europe.”

The French revolutions of 1789, 1830 and 1848 all started out in Paris, the nation's capital and biggest city. The Russian revolutions of 1905, February 1917 and October 1917 all began with actions in St. Petersburg / Petrograd / Leningrad.

Then mentioning how business has displaced land as a source of wealth. Land is very stable, while business is not. "Its members have not been brought up to run the government or the army or the church or to govern the provinces. They are more likely to believe that opportunities should be open to all than to believe that the world should be governed by heredity"

 

[lpetrich]

Then discussing ideology, and how modern trends go against monarchy.

Inheritance: "The contemporary ideal is that of the French Revolution, that there should be a career open to the talents, and that as far as possible opportunities should be equally available to all. At the same time, belief in the importance of hereditary characteristics has waned and belief in the importance of environment in influencing a person’s character and abilities has correspondingly increased."

Hierarchy has been replaced by the principle of social equality on a fundamental level. "Urbanization has been a potent solvent of hierarchy. The traditional order was a predominantly rural one, and life in the city has always facilitated social mobility."

This supports democracy, of course, though IMO that may also support technocracy, rule by people with expertise in ruling. Many politicians in representative democracies present themselves to their voters as skilled leaders or potentially skilled leaders, thus supporting de facto technocracy in a broad sense.

 

[lpetrich]

Turning to religion, "The sort of religious beliefs that favour monarchy – that the crops will only grow if the king performs the required rituals, for example – are those of a primitive agricultural society. Factory workers have never believed that the machines will only work if someone of royal blood performs sacred rituals to appease the gods."

Also, manufacturing is more under our control than agriculture, something dependent on the vagaries of the weather and suchlike. That promotes a more rationalistic outlook -- too much out of our control promotes superstition.

Then on British and French kings stopping their royal-touch cures, and the British Parliament deciding who will succeed Queen Anne.

In the countries colonized by European powers traditional beliefs about indigenous rulers’ supernatural powers or godlike status were undermined by their evident failure in the face of the white invaders and by the efforts of Christian missionaries. And claims to rule by divine appointment stopped being credible when indigenous rulers clearly held whatever power they retained thanks to the colonial authorities.

Religious questions still play a key role in politics in many countries, but not usually in such a way as to support the principle of hereditary monarchy. This change in the relationship between religion and politics is part of a larger secularization of our world view, which in turn reflects improved scientific knowledge about how the world works.

Then giving some examples. Scrofula patients often recover on their own, thus making a king only seem to have been successful in curing them with his touch. The Nile floods independently of what some leader of Egypt might do. Etc.

 

[bilby]

IIUC, when the British Monarch addresses Parliament she is required to recite ONLY the speech prepared by Her Prime Minister.

That used to be the case, however since 8 September 2022, the rule is that when the British Monarch addresses Parliament he is required to recite ONLY the speech prepared by His Prime Minister.

 

[lpetrich]

Demonstration effects went into reverse as republics became more common. With the exception of some Middle Eastern ones, decolonized countries have almost all become republics. The first big wave of decolonization was in Latin America in the 1820's; only Brazil became a monarchy. This was inspired by the first decolonized country, the US, a republic. The second big wave of decolonization was after World War II, and the newly-independent countries had mostly republics as their models, counting the likes of the UK as republics.

Then discussing the decline of the British monarchy.

Going back to the English Civil War of 1642 - 1951, it was a power struggle between King Charles I and Parliament over such things as the power of taxation. The Parliamentarians won and chopped off the king's head. Oliver Cromwell of Parliament's New Model Army then took over and ruled for nearly a decade as "Lord Protector". He was succeeded by his son Richard, but Richard never got much support, and Parliament decided to make Charles I's son Charles II king. In return, Charles II pledged to work with Parliament.

Oliver Cromwell was like so many overthrowers of monarchs before recent centuries: he ended up becoming a new monarch.

Some decades later, in 1685, James II became king, wanting to make Catholicism the state religion and not wanting to work with Parliament. A lot of people were discontented, being Protestants and having fought a civil war over king vs. Parliament. But King James II had a big army. But some of his opponents discovered a way out. The king's daughter Mary was married to William of Orange, stadholder (stadtholder) of 5 of the 7 provinces of the Dutch Republic, with a sizable army and navy at his command. Stadholder William invaded Britain, and King James fled without putting up a fight.

William and Mary ruled Britain and Parliament got even more power. Not just over taxes but also over spending. By the middle of the 18th century, while the king could choose ministers (top officials), they had to have the approval of a majority of the House of Commons.

BSG then discusses how Parliament met more frequently and longer in the 18th cy. than in the 15th cy. (once a year vs. once every 2 or 3 years, 6 months vs. 2 or 3 months). Some things helped, like improved roads and an improved postal system, but it was still a burden to live in London.

 

[lpetrich]

Then getting into European colonization and decolonization, which was a "holocaust" for monarchy. Kinds of colonies:

1. European settlers dominated and continued to rule after independence.
2. European settlers were less dominant, and the indigenous population took over after independence.
3. European settlers' slaves and their descendants.

In (1) the original people's governments were pretty much crushed. The settlers, however, developed republican tendencies from moving away from their original countries' hierarchies. They did not develop indigenous monarchies but instead continued the monarchies of the countries that founded their colonies.

In (2) surviving indigenous monarchies survived by coexisting with the colonial administrators, sometimes for a long time.

(3) is much like (2) with no monarchies.

Becoming a republic was natural after independence, even in (2). Local monarchies were sometimes discredited by having collaborated with European colonists.

Colonial and post-colonial borders were sometimes very arbitrary, like in Africa.

Brazil was an exception, one of the few countries to become independent with a new monarchy. In its case, the King of Portugal's son Pedro was regent over the colony, and after it became independent, he became Emperor Pedro I.

European colonialism had effects on non-colonized countries also.

The Chinese monarchy was discredited by humiliating treaties with European powers, and it was overthrown and replaced by a republic.

Japan had a more complex story. It had been ruled by a shogun, nominally a military commander, with the Emperor mostly sidelined. After Commodore Perry ordered the opening up of Japan to US visitors, it was the shoguns who were discredited and overthrown, with reformers claiming to restore the Emperor in the Meiji Restoration.

 

[lpetrich]

BSG then addresses the issue of why the US became a republic rather than a monarchy when it became independent.

The thirteen colonies were mini-republics well before independence, and they lacked nobilities / aristocracies and their white citizens had a lot of social equality.

Also helpful was good roads and not that many delegates to the Continental Congresses. Having a common enemy also helped: King George III.


"The persistence of monarchy"

What he considers true monarchies: Bahrein, Brunei, Eswatini (formerly Swaziland), Jordan, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates

He leaves out nations with monarques fainéants, nations that act like republics except for their monarchs, nations like the UK.

He then lists covert monarchies: Azerbaijan (1993, 2 gens), Djibouti (1977, 2 gens), Equatorial Guinea (1968, 2 gens), Gabon (1967, 2 gens), North Korea (1948, 3 gens), Syria (1971, 2 gens), Togo (1967, 2 gens)

North Korea's ruling family is officially the "Paektu bloodline" there, after Mt. Paektu on the northern border. Experts: A Girl and Missiles Are North Korea’s Way to Perpetuate Regime "North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has made a symbolic gesture of telling the world his regime would continue into the next generation by presenting his daughter at a series of major military events featuring top generals and the latest military hardware, said experts." as if daughter Kim Ju Ae is a potential successor to Kim Jong Un, son of Kim Jong-Il, son of Kim Il-Sung.

"There are one or two other dictatorships where it may be suspected that the intention is to keep control in the hands of the ruling family, but until the transfer of power is successfully accomplished one can never be certain."

Also mentioning overthrown dictators Saddam Hussein of Iraq (in power 1979 - 2003) and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya (in power 1969 - 2011), both of whom wanted to be succeeded by their sons.

 

[lpetrich]

Republicanism is now so successful that new monarchies don't call themselves that, with the exception of the Central African Empire. Much like ancient Greece and Rome and late-medieval Italy.

The two European ones - Liechtenstein and Monaco - survive because they are small, they don't have much that is very strategic, and they stay out of wars. Also, it usually takes some political upheaval to end a monarchy, and those microstates avoid such things. That also explains the persistence of monarchies in otherwise-republican nations: the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Japan, and Lesotho.

Some of the surviving monarchies have plenty of oil wealth, enabling them to buy their citizens' subjection: Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Brunei, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Oman.

The history of these countries is important. For the non-European overt monarchies, their survival probably reflects the fact that, although subject to varying extents to European imperialism, their traditional cultures were relatively little affected by it.

Also, they try to stay out of wars.

BSG then summed up his theorizing on why monarchy lasted over nearly all of humanity's recorded history, only to go into precipitous decline over the last few centuries.

 

[Swammerdami]

IIUC, when the British Monarch addresses Parliament she is required to recite ONLY the speech prepared by Her Prime Minister.

That used to be the case, however since 8 September 2022, the rule is that when the British Monarch addresses Parliament he is required to recite ONLY the speech prepared by His Prime Minister.

I actually wrote "he/she ... His/Her" but -- since he/his is widely accepted as shorthand for a human of any sex or gender -- I changed to the terser "she/Her". I wanted to test for sexist bias in such pronouns.

Like most of you I was born during the Reign of Rama IX, but UNLIKE most of you I was born during the reign of George VI, rather than that of his long-lived daughter. The late Queen and my Mother were born in the same year as each other, married the same year, and bore their first child the same year.

This all reminds me of an anecdote I found amusing. A young English friend and I were on a long drive and chatting aimlessly. The Olympic Games were in progress and conversation turned to national anthems. Suddenly my English friend was severely startled: "I just thought of something. What are we going to do for a national anthem when the Queen dies?"

 

[Bomb#20]

I actually wrote "he/she ... His/Her" but -- since he/his is widely accepted as shorthand for a human of any sex or gender -- I changed to the terser "she/Her". I wanted to test for sexist bias in such pronouns.

The female embraces the male?

Suddenly my English friend was severely startled: "I just thought of something. What are we going to do for a national anthem when the Queen dies?"

My country 'tis of thee?

 

[lpetrich]

A constitutional monarch can add stability and integrity to government ... if the monarch is righteous. Holland and all the Scandinavian countries have monarchs and these are among the happiest, most stable, and best-governed countries on the planet. Didn't the King of Denmark play key roles during World War II, perhaps saving his country's Jews from deportation? I think heirs to such a throne are inculcated from an early age with virtues like honor and sacrifice.

Yes, a monarch can have a lot of soft power, but that depends on the monarch, and that does not seem to be either very heritable or very teachable.

Consider Elizabeth II vs. her children and grandchildren and their spouses. She had very few scandals, while her descendants have had oodles of scandals. She was also very likable, while I doubt that that is true of most of her descendants.

Consider this about her: Queen Elizabeth dies: When the feminist Queen took the Saudi prince for a drive -- she once drove a Saudi prince around her Balmoral estate, and the prince got rather scared -- she seemed a bit overenthusiastic.

 

[lpetrich]

An important and IMO underappreciated feature of democracy is rule by committee: rule by a council, an assembly, a legislature, a congress, a parliament, ... Rule by committee also extends to subsets of these bodies: legislative committees go back some centuries in some legislatures.

There is some research that supports that: Stronger Legislatures, Stronger Democracies | Journal of Democracy - January 2006 - M. Steven Fish

Researches several post-Communist countries, and finds that there is a strong correlation between the power of the legislature and the strength of democracy. The power of a legislature he measured with a Parliamentary Powers Index - how much autonomy it has, how much control over the executive branch, etc. and the quality of democracy he measured with Freedom House's Freedom in the World.

M. Steven Fish and Matthew Kroenig later wrote a book The Handbook of National Legislatures: A Global Survey (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009) going into detail about their scoring for many of the world's national legislatures. Microsoft Word - Parliamentary Powers Index, Scores by Country.doc - PPIScores.pdf

I myself have compared the scores to measures of quality of democracy like the Economist Democracy Index and Freedom in the World, and I also find a strong correlation.

That work used an equal weighting of the powers, and I've found Measuring Legislative Power: An Expert Reweighting of the Fish‐Kroenig Parliamentary Powers Index - Chernykh - 2017 - Legislative Studies Quarterly - Wiley Online Library with PDF Measuring Legislative Power: An Expert Reweighting of the Fish-Kroenig Parliamentary Powers Index

But that correlation also holds with that reweighting.

 

[bilby]

Consider Elizabeth II vs. her children and grandchildren and their spouses. She had very few scandals, while her descendants have had oodles of scandals.

I sincerely doubt that this tells us anything about differences between these people; What it highlights is how news media, in England and worldwide, has changed since WWII.

In the 1950s, a newspaper editor on Fleet Street who got hold of a scandalous story about Princess Elizabeth would likely not publish, either out of personal respect for the crown, or because the MoD would issue a D-Notice to protect "Personnel and their Families who work in Sensitive Positions".

In the 21st century, a newspaper editor who didn't get hold of a scadalous story about a Prince or Princess, would likely just make one up from bits of rumour, secure in the knowledge that slander judgements against newspapers are rare, and that scandal (particularly royal scandal) is profitable enough to cover any costs due to legal action.

 

[lpetrich]

Part of the decline of monarchy has been the rise of more collective or corporate forms of government, like ruling councils and legislatures. That is evident from the English Civil War and its aftermath. Over the centuries, Parliament grew from being an advisory council to being the supreme ruling body, running the executive parts of government out of itself.

US Founder John Adams wrote a big book, "Defense of the Constitutions of the United States of America" (1787-1788), and he discussed in it "democratical republics", "aristocratical republics", and "monarchical republics": Britain and Poland.

I note that he did not consider "monarchical republic" a contradiction in terms. But what does one call a monarchy where all the work of governing is done in republican fashion? I've seen "crowned republic".

 

[lpetrich]

Delivering Stability—Primogeniture and Autocratic Survival in European Monarchies 1000–1800 | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core

Building a strong autocratic state requires stability in ruler-elite relations. From this perspective the absence of a successor is problematic, as the elite have few incentives to remain loyal if the autocrat cannot reward them for their loyalty after his death. However, an appointed successor has both the capacity and the motive to challenge the autocrat. We argue that a succession based on primogeniture solves the dilemma, by providing the regime with a successor who can afford to wait to inherit the throne peacefully. We test our hypothesis on a dataset covering 961 monarchs ruling 42 European states between 1000 and 1800, and show that fewer monarchs were deposed in states practicing primogeniture than in states practicing alternative succession orders. A similar pattern persists in the world's remaining absolute monarchies. Primogeniture also contributed to building strong states: In 1801 all European monarchies had adopted primogeniture or succumbed to foreign enemies.

Primogeniture: succession by one's oldest son. A common alternative was agnatic (male-line) succession: succession by one's oldest brother or other oldest close male relative.

The problem of a successor becoming impatient is sometimes called the "crown prince problem".