Democracy is a system that has truly failed us. How can a government comprised of representatives who are bribed and influenced by powers within and without state borders claim to be truly beneficial to its people? It is a system full of corruption, full of short-term plans that take entire terms to pass through the divided, splintered parliament. Nothing is ever done. Nothing is ever acheived. The politicians tell us exactly what we want to hear but never make the changes they promise when we give them power. For several centuries, most western countries have been governed by the principles of this system. This cruel and inefficient system. It has spread across the globe, now controlling most of the world’s nations. It supposedly puts power “In the hands of the people” by appealing to their needs and allowing them to vote for the party that they think will best satisfy said needs. This all sounds brilliant on paper, and in theory certainly it’s something to be admired. However, in practice, this system is perhaps one of the worst, due to its innately malevolent nature, despite what individuals and individual parties claim to aspire to, Parliament is inevitably gridlocked by constant infighting between parties, and becomes stagnant.
Britain, and by extension, all western and a good proportion of eastern nations, control their populace not through fear, such as with fascist and stalinist nations, but by indoctrinating a belief into its citizens that the very idea of any form of government other than a democracy is “extremism” and must be destroyed – Thus becoming intolerant in their quest for tolerance. Decrying such evil movements as National Socialism and Islamic extremism is of course a noble thing to do, as these movements focused on persecuting and eliminating innocent people. This is the distinction that must be made if this message is to get anywhere: historical anti-democratic movements such as the aftformentioned Nazism and Communism, were hostile towards a sizeable portion of their own people. An authoritarian government doesn’t need to be like this – Authoritarian doesn’t mean evil.
Where can we look, then, for a suitable way of governing? We must simply look at monarchy for the solution. Monarchy is undeniably the most stable form of government, and it is one that “money cannot buy” – as in, it cannot be corrupted. Monarchs – true absoute monarchs – can make decisions quickly and confidently for the benefit of their own country and people, and indeed countries and people beyond.
This blog will be an exploration of the various facets of monarchy and why it is the best form of governance overall. It will be dealing with which form of monarchy is the greatest. In short, this will mean the following –
. The nature of my views on monarchy. I am by no means a “pure” legitimist. If a royal family hasn’t been functioning as absolutists for some time (Such as the Windsors), and if they accept the sham of constitutional monarchy and support democracy, they should be replaced by a new royal family that adhere to the values of absolutism and who know how to rule. This may alienate some hardline legitimists. But I ask you, how did these families become ‘legitimate’ in the first place? And then ask yourself “Why can’t a new monarchy become legitimate”?
. My thoughts on monarchs and other prominent people past and present. These will include reviled figures such as King John, celebrated heroes such as Queen Victoria and my own personal favouites such as Charles I and Napoleon I.
I have now shown you what to expect, and if you are interested then please stick around – I hope you enjoy my posts!
The New Monarchist
An autocracy is a system of government in which supreme power is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control (except perhaps for the implicit threat of a coup d'état or mass insurrection).[1] Absolute monarchy and dictatorship are the main historical forms of autocracy. In very early times, the term: 'Autocrat', was written in coins as a favorable feature of the ruler, having some connection to the concept of: 'Lack of conflicts of interests'.
ReplyDeleteA monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is actually or nominally embodied in one individual reigning until death or abdication. They are called monarchs.[1] Forms of monarchy differ widely based on the level of legal autonomy the monarch holds in governance, the method of selection of the monarch, and any predetermined limits on the length of their tenure. When the monarch has no or few legal restraints in state and political matters, it is called an absolute monarchy, and is a form of autocracy. Cases in which the monarch's discretion is formally limited, either by law or by convention, is called a constitutional monarchy. In hereditary monarchies, the office is passed through inheritance within a family group, whereas elective monarchies use some system of voting. Each of these has variations: in some elected monarchies only those of certain pedigrees are eligible, whereas many hereditary monarchies impose requirements regarding the religion, age, gender, mental capacity, and other factors. Occasionally this might create a situation of rival claimants whose legitimacy is subject to effective election. Finally, there have been cases where the term of a monarch's reign is either fixed in years or continues until certain goals are achieved: an invasion being repulsed, for instance. Thus there are widely divergent structures and traditions defining monarchy.
ReplyDeleteRichard I of England being anointed during his coronation in Westminster Abbey, from a 13th-century chronicle.
Monarchy was the most common form of government until the 19th century, but it is no longer prevalent. Where it exists, it is now usually a constitutional monarchy, in which the monarch retains a unique legal and ceremonial role, but exercises limited or no official political power: under the written or unwritten constitution, others have governing authority. Currently, 44 sovereign nations in the world have monarchs acting as heads of state, 16 of which are Commonwealth realms that recognise Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state. All European monarchies are constitutional ones, with the exception of the Vatican City which is an elective monarchy, but sovereigns in the smaller states exercise greater political influence than in the larger. The monarchs of Cambodia, Japan, and Malaysia "reign, but do not rule" although there is considerable variation in the degree of authority they wield. Although they reign under constitutions, the monarchs of Brunei, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Swaziland appear to continue to exercise more political influence than any other single source of authority in their nations, either by constitutional mandate or by tradition.