Monarchism is widely viewed as a relic of a by-gone past. Queen Elizabeth is seen as a mere figurehead, holding no real power, and in the eyes of many costing far too much. On the flip side, those monarchs with real power, such as King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, are viewed largely as authoritarian dictators and abusers of power. As legitimate as the charge may be, neither position is the view I hold on monarchy.
The monarch must at times be an active participant in the nation and its people. These doesn’t not mean an entire lack of democracy, nor does it mean that the monarch wields power like a crazed dictator. Rather, the monarch is there to provide a link to the past, a symbol of the nation, and a stable leadership. As is eveident, the monarch need not concern themselves with petty party politics that almost always blights democracy. The monarch thus serves in the capacity of arbiter in a nation-state. Owing no allegiance to a party or ideology, the monarch serves in the best interests of society. Where neccessary, the monarch will intervene in runnings of state, increasingly state control in certain areas. At other times, the monarch will decrease state control, allowing their subjects to make their own decisions.
The flexible nature of the monarch seems to stand in contradiction to the inherent stability of the system, but it becomes apparent that the two qualities supplement each other. The view of monarchy as an old, dusty, government of by-gone days, belies the fact that the monarchy in fact provides the bedrock of a thriving society. Democracy is by nature a vastly unstable form of government. Based largely on partisan politics and ideology, coupled with elections–which may or may not have roaming election dates–democratic governments experience leadership changes every few years at the maximum. The limited timespan is heralded in most “liberal” circles as a good thing, as it reflects the supposedly ever shifting winds of change that beset the modern world. Unfortunately the inevitable result of such short-lived governments is the lack of change. The Conservative is elected and immediately cuts taxes and social programs; the subsequent Liberal government follows a few years later; raising taxes on the wealthy and reinstituing the formerly-cut social safety net. The cycle continues.
The democratic system IS broken. A statement to which almost all agree. Unfortunately, the willingness of elected politicians to change the system which elected them is non-existent. A politicians goal is to win an election. Not to govern responsibly. Not to serve the needs all of all citizenry. But to be elected. Politics is known as a corrupt field because politicians will say and do anything to win, throwing their dirty laundry in the basement, hopefully to be forgotten. If and when they do win, the politician will reflect the views of his party and those voters who elected him. Not all voters. Just the ones who voted for him. And only that if you can reach him between all the lobbyists, interest groups, and other politicians who seek his ear.
And they say monarchy is corrupt.
