I thought I might have blogged a bit about this before, but apparently I just commented on other perople's blogs. Anyway, I've been thinking again about monarchy since my watching of the videos about the Habsburgs last week.
The fact is, I'm something of a monarchist, even though I realize that there is no way the USA could ever have a king. But I think that for countries in which monarchy has been traditional, it can be a good thing. I don't advocate absolute monarchy, but I think in a parliamentary democracy a king or queen can be a good thing to have. When we consider royal houses in the 20th Century, whether we look at Otto von Habsburg the British House of Windsor, or any of the other royal houses of Europe, one important characteristic is a very genuine sense of duty. They are truly dedicated to a cause beyond their own status — the well-being of their people. Freed from the necessity of appealing to the masses for their next election, they can consider what will really serve the good of those masses. So it seems to me that a system which gives them a limited but real degree of power (e.g. in vetoing acts of Parliament and in giving advice to Prime Ministers) — more than the current British monarchy but less than the American President — would be a good thing. A king can represent the unity of the nation above partisan divisions and serve as a check on potential mistaken or unjust acts by the majority of a particular moment.
IMO in countries which are not monarchies but which still have the former royal house available, the people would be wise to elect the person who would be king or emperor as President of the Republic. (Germany would have the problem of deciding between the Hohenzollerns and the Wittelsbachs — maybe they could take turns.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I agree with your point that a monarchy could be a good thing by representing the unity of a nation against the partisan strifes of daily parliamentary life; it´s also true, I think, that monarchies have other time-horizons than pure majoritarian democracies.
As for Germany one has to admit, though, that the unification under the Hohenzollern which took place during the 19. century did not achieve its goals.
There was alwas a strong opposition against the Prussian Hohenzollern, not by by the Bavarians, but also by the Welfen loyalists who were represented by the able parlamentarian Ludwig Windthorst.
It´s a sad fact of German history that the Prussian reaction against this opposition was of a proto-totalitarian type (just think of the 'Kulturkampf').
And then, the Hohenzollern were so unwise! Just remember that the ousted Wilhelm II. did sent an exultant letter to Hitler after the German army defeated the French.
Of course, the religious divisions of Germany are now far less important than then, but still there are many Germans (me among them) who would resent a Hohenzollern King.
Kind regards
Morgenländer
Interesting post!
Monarchy has advantages and disadvantages over democracy depending on how the principle is put into practice. The strength of the British Monarchy traditionally has been that the Monarch (i) fulfils a symbolic role, providing living, psychological continuity to the country and (ii) is able to offer impartial advice and (iii) diplomatic support to the country's elected Government but without interfering with its democratic mandate.
On the other hand, many of the best and most successful monarchies have been elective monarchies. The real German kings before the Nineteenth Century were the Holy Roman Emperors, who were originally elected by a college of so-called Electors. Before the Norman Conquest, similarly, the English Kings were elected by the Witanagemot. The Roman kings were also elected, and so are the Popes to this day. In other words, there is nothing per se undemocratic about monarchies, so there is no reason why a king would necessarily be above party politics.
@ Morgenländer: I think you're slightly unfair on Kaiser Wilhelm II. For his true opinion of Hitler, have a look at this. Footage of his funeral can be seen on YouTube here. What it noticeable, even though it is conducted by the Wehrmacht, is an almost total lack of a Nazi presence.
Interesting post!
Monarchy has advantages and disadvantages over democracy depending on how the principle is put into practice. The strength of the British Monarchy traditionally has been that the Monarch (i) fulfils a symbolic role, providing living, psychological continuity to the country and (ii) is able to offer impartial advice and (iii) diplomatic support to the country's elected Government but without interfering with its democratic mandate.
On the other hand, many of the best and most successful monarchies have been elective monarchies. The real German kings before the Nineteenth Century were the Holy Roman Emperors, who were originally elected by a college of so-called Electors. Before the Norman Conquest, similarly, the English Kings were elected by the Witanagemot. The Roman kings were also elected, and so are the Popes to this day. In other words, there is nothing per se undemocratic about monarchies, so there is no reason why a king would necessarily be above party politics.
@ Morgenländer: I think you're slightly unfair on Kaiser Wilhelm II. For his true opinion of Hitler, have a look at this. Footage of his funeral can be seen on YouTube here. What is noticeable about the Kaiser's funeral, even though it is conducted by the Wehrmacht, is an almost total lack of a Nazi presence.
Thanks for the comment. The remark about the Welfs sent me to wiki, where I learned that the House of Hanover in England were Welfs. Interesting.
Certainly monarchs can be unwise, which is why absolute monarchy is not the best regime. And wars and conflicts over succession have been a staple of history.
But the blogger at Victory of Faith sees another side to Wilhelm II.
http://victory-of-faith.tumblr.com/post/9761917052/there-is-a-man-alone-without-family-without
which in turn is based on this
http://lostinthemythsofhistory.blogspot.com/2011/08/kaiser-wilhelms-true-opinion-of-hitler.html?spref=fb
You can follow the link to the actual article. The characterization of Hitler as one who "has neither a God to honor nor a dynasty to conserve nor a past to consult" is a good reference,by way of contrast, to elements that can make monarchies good. He also shows a good grasp of what it means to be a nation with a tradition at the heart of its culture.
Germany's history certainly makes the idea of a monarchy more problematic than it would be for France, Austria, Hungary, Italy, etc.
Another interesting example is Belgium, where the monarch is officially titled "King of the Belgians", and (if I've read the Wikipedia article correctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Belgium) has exactly the sort of powers that you're suggesting. The King also has specific responsibilities in the formation of new governments - something that's particularly significant at the moment, as the country has been unable to form a government since the parliamentary elections of June 2010.
Thanks for referring me to the article about Wilhelm's true opinion on his successor. It was a very interesting read, the more so because it is, I believe, totally unknown to the Germans.
Wilhelm's characterization of Hitler is quite astute, and you are right in pointing out that he is indirectly describing those features of a monarchy which can be helpful for a nation at a point of severe crisis.
Still, the telegram of congratulation he send to Hitler shows a ruler who does not seem to care about human rights and justice in international relations. How could he praise the 'Fuehrer' for beating the French when he knew about the dismal human rights record of the German government?
This is what he wrote on the 17th of June, 1940:
„Unter dem tiefergreifenden Eindruck der Waffenstreckung Frankreichs beglückwünsche ich Sie und die gesamte deutsche Wehrmacht zu dem von Gott geschenkten gewaltigen Sieg mit den Worten Kaiser Wilhelms des Großen vom Jahre 1870: ‚Welche Wendung durch Gottes Fügung‘. In allen deutschen Herzen erklingt der Choral von Leuthen, den die Sieger von Leuthen, des Großen Königs Soldaten, anstimmten: ‚Nun danket alle Gott‘“
Kind regards
Morgenländer
To my mind the Kaiser's telegram was clearly addressed mainly to the German Army and to Hitler only as the de facto head of state. In any case, it was the Army's achievement he was praising, not the Führer's.
Perhaps by the time the French surrendered, good Germans should have known enough about the evil Hitler represented not to rejoice at the defeat of France. But there was such a history of conflict and war between the countries that maybe we can excuse people for thinking that defeating France was a good thing regardless of who led the German government. I think it's worth noting that for Wilhelm II the context is 1870 and Leuthen, not National Socialism. As we used to say in the United States, "Politics stops at the water's edge."
Indeed, the main reason why the French surrendered was because about half of them saw German occupation as preferable to domestic Communism.
Post a Comment