When Is a Country Not a Country? (Usually When It’s a Republic)

A discussion of one of the many reasons that monarchies are by far superior to republics.

From The Mad Monarchist (6 March 2015)

Being a pan-monarchist can be extremely frustrating. At least one reason, but a major one, for my frustration at least is the extent to which the proven viability of monarchy is so blatantly self-evident around the world and some republicans will even acknowledge it but yet none seem able to make the simple connection that the monarchy is the one common factor and thus should be something to take seriously. The biggest issue in the news lately has been the problems in the Middle East. Everyone can see that the monarchies have been the most stable regimes there and when it comes to confronting the ISIS terrorist gang, no world leader has won more praise than the King of Jordan. The growing concern about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons should also drive home the fact, long known by monarchists, that the overthrow of the Shah was the birthday of the modern terrorist movement. Yemen is in chaos and it all stems back to a war between royalists and republicans, each backed by regional monarchies and republics, which the royalists lost and we see the result. Iraq is another example of how bad things become when a monarchy falls while the monarchies that remain, whether one likes them or not, have at least been stable.

Likewise, in Asia, monarchies have a record of providing a sense of calm and order even when social or political problems have caused chaos. Not a few foreign observers remarked how even when Japan was going through a rapid turnover in governments (even by Japanese standards) there was no loss of confidence and no panic on the part of the public or foreign investors. Even an American commentator on Chinese state television had to admit that the Emperor played a vital part in explaining this. His presence reassured people that, no matter how many governments and politicians would come and go, everything would be okay; Japan as a country remained stable. Recently, there has probably been no better example of this than the Kingdom of Thailand which has often had a chaotic political history. In fact, chaos in the government of Thailand can seem to be the norm rather than the exception. Recently there was another military takeover of the Thai government, something far from unprecedented in Thai history, which came about due to rampant political corruption and finally acts of terrorism by the faction previously in power. However, in spite of all this turmoil, Thailand, as a country, is perfectly stable. Life is going on as normal and undoubtedly the King’s endorsement of the military administration has played a part in that. In the past, aside from being a powerful symbol, the King has been relied on to intervene in politics in times of crisis to bring about calm, reconciliation and a return to normalcy.

Perhaps it is due to the situation being hard to put into words that more people do not see what is right in front of their eyes. The unusual thing about life in Thailand, for example, is that there is nothing unusual about it. To the south, in the Kingdom of Malaysia there has been, relatively recently, a great deal of trouble but, again, it has not brought about any crisis of confidence among the Malaysian people or foreigners. A monarch, by their very nature, and the living link with history that a monarchy provides gives a country that intangible, hard-to-describe “something” that helps people keep things in perspective. It is a stabilizing force, even when taking no action at all, and just by being there can keep things within a traditional framework that allows for change to happen without getting out of control. Moreover, in a way that is also frustratingly hard to put in to words, it represents a means of organic growth for countries as opposed to harsh, artificial regimes that destroy countries by trying to re-make them according to some utopian ideology.

One of the largest examples today of a place where this, sadly, did not happen is China. As a country, a culture, a people, China existed for thousands of years. There were good times and bad times but the “national spirit” for lack of a better word, was preserved. Even when China was conquered and ruled by non-Han peoples such as the Mongol Yuan Dynasty or the Manchu Qing Dynasty, it was in accordance with the traditional way that change happened in China and, as a result, even the conquerors became “conquered” themselves by the Chinese culture. Then, there were the events of 1911 when, for the first time, totally foreign ideas, institutions and values were forced upon China in an attempt to re-make the country into something totally different from what it had been for thousands of years. The Mongols and Manchus came to China and adopted Chinese ways. China changed them far more than they changed China. However, with the birth of the Republic of China, the new rulers of the country tried to change China based on totally foreign concepts. Ultimately, this led to the importation of political divisions from abroad, a gruesome civil war and a new regime based on the utopian ideology of a 19th-Century German-Jew that ultimately resulted in the Cultural Revolution that declared war on all things traditionally and fundamentally Chinese.

So, China was a country, a culture and a people but suddenly became something artificial. It became, not a country but an ideology. Eventually, after millions died of starvation, disease and poverty, this ideology was proven to be moronic and so, while never officially renouncing it, China became what it is today; essentially a business. It is even run like a business, with one all-powerful CEO chosen by a board of directors known to the public as the Chinese Communist Party. And, unfortunately, China is far from unique. A similar story can be told in a multitude of countries all around the world. Numerous other Asian countries fit the pattern, most African countries fit the pattern, Russia, even South America where, without any direct foreign intervention, countries broke away from Spain and tried to set up their artificial countries based on theories that seemed to work elsewhere but which were ultimately shown to be unworkable in Latin America. What about the United States? It is easy to misunderstand the United States and many have. It is an artificial country but, although plenty of Americans would not want to admit this, aside from a great deal of plain good luck, much of the success of America has been due to the fact that the “American Revolution” was not really a revolution. They didn’t try to remake society, they didn’t really change much at all but basically just took the existing British model of government that was natural to them and tweaked it a little bit to suit their republican sentiments. It was not a jarring break and (unless you were a loyalist) life went on pretty much the same as before.

This stands in stark contrast to, for example, Mexico which, not by sheer coincidence, has not been so successful a country. When Mexico first became independent, as a monarchy, in 1821 there was no official constitution (the Plan of Iguala serving) and the law was not drastically different from what it had been during the Spanish era. In fact, one thing that prompted conservative Mexicans to go along with independence were the changes being made in the “constitution” of Spain. We will never know how that would have worked out as it was not given a chance, as we know, with the first emperor, Iturbide, being deposed and later shot. The first official Mexican constitution was the Constitution of 1824. This was a very federalist constitution that was heavily influenced by that of the United States, granting considerable powers to the states. However, not surprisingly, what worked for British-Americans in the United States did not work so well in Mexico and it was soon reduced to a dead-letter by a succession of dictators.

Next, came the Constitution of 1857, most associated with the tenure of President Benito Juarez. Though power was more centralized, in some ways it was even more like that of the United States than the 1824 version. However, it further broke with Mexican culture and traditions by being so anti-clerical. It was the first constitution to make Mexico a secular country and to place restrictions on the Catholic Church. Thus it became a bone of contention, leading to civil war and ultimately the restoration of the monarchy under Emperor Maximilian. Juarez himself violated the terms of the 1857 constitution on numerous occasions and finally it was found to be unacceptable after the country fell back into dictatorship. It was then that Mexico adopted its current constitution, the Constitution of 1917. Even more restrictive of religion, very leftist in character, it did bring an end to the era of dictatorships in Mexico but replaced it with the era of ideological tyranny with decades of effective one-party rule under the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party). Oddly enough, to show how widespread this problem is, this constitution which was not even compatible with Mexico, ended up being the inspiration for those of the Weimar Republic and the first post-Tsarist constitution in Russia. And, of course, we remember what resounding “successes” those regimes were.

Contrarily, those countries which have retained their monarchies have a far different record. They change and evolve of course and fare good or bad depending on the decisions they make just as republics do. However, as long as the overall structure of the monarchy remains, so that these changes and decisions occur within a traditional framework, moderation remains more prevalent than fanaticism and bad decisions are more easily, and perhaps even more importantly, more peacefully able to be corrected. And unless anyone thinks that other institutions, besides the monarchy, are the real determining factor, there are two easy examples to disprove those who think all depends on the constitution. The United Kingdom, as most know, has no official, written constitution and yet has been a more stable and prosperous country, historically, than most countries that do. The monarchy has served to smooth out the difficulties that in other lands would have led to armed revolts or coups. Somewhat similarly, the State of Japan has a constitution which represents a rather drastic break with their national traditions and political culture, made a time when calm and impartial decisions were hardly possible. Yet, though I personally think Japan would be well served to discard it and have another or revise it significantly, Japan under that constitution rose from ruin and defeat to be the second most wealthy country in the world. Even the most ardent republicans have had to admit that this was due in large part to the retention of the Emperor.

France is, on the other hand, an example of a country that was torn, violently, from its traditional roots and while seemingly a fairly prosperous country, had really never recovered from that. The Kingdom of France existed for about a thousand years and while there were certainly good times and bad times the overall structure of the country was maintained and even when things became really bad (be it religious wars or English domination), France always bounced back to attain new heights. Since the revolution, however, France has had the restored monarchy, a popular monarchy, two empires, a pseudo-fascistic state and five republics. Add to that the fact that most did not go peacefully into that dark night and consider how divided France still is today. More to the point, of the problems France has today, virtually all of them can be traced back to the revolution and the, so-far, failed efforts by the French to come to terms with it. Much of the recent internal turmoil has been due to issues involving French Muslims. How did this come about? For one thing, the French Revolution shattered the place of Christianity in France and it has never really fully come back and taken root, secularism became acceptable and so an alien religion like Islam has little competition. More broadly, the very ideals of the French Revolution have made it very hard for France to combat disloyal and even terrorist elements in their midst without looking like hypocrites. And this is nothing new as the speed with which France replaced the First Republic with the First Empire and the numerous republics and monarchies since has plainly shown that the ideals of the French Revolution were recognized to be unworkable, utopian nonsense fairly early on.

This is all the more tragic because, at the time of the revolution, King Louis XVI was in the process of making needed changes on his own which were making use of existing, traditional French institutions (some of which had fallen into disuse) and which, I at least certainly have no doubt, would have had a lasting and positive influence on the country. Of course, as with anything, there is no simple solution that will negate the fallibility of mankind or make one immune from the effects of bad decisions. However, when considering the overall success of Scandinavia, the Low Countries and the Anglosphere it seems that what detrimental changes have occurred, have been forced to happen rather slowly, incrementally, over time and the structures remain in place to (we hope) see these problems corrected. In these countries, the institutions that have grown up naturally, paramount being the monarchy, are generally accepted as a permanent fixture of the political landscape. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for every monarchy, such as Spain, where there was a jarring break with the past and a persistence on the part of many to desire a return to republicanism for a third time, despite the objective failure of the first two attempts (the second being quite gruesome as well).

Some may disagree, and this is only opinion, but when considering the subject it does seem to me that there is a distinct, if hard to precisely put into words, difference between a radical, violent change, as with a revolution, and natural changes that have occurred within a traditional framework. Additionally, it seems that countries which have taken this route have the greater record of success behind them. Even when things have gone to the extent of, for example, the so-called Glorious Revolution or American Revolution, these things were really not all that revolutionary. There was nothing like the September Massacres or “New Soviet Man” or the Cultural Revolution that came out of those (to my mind) unfortunate events. Countries that attempt to deny themselves, their own past, their own nature, never seem to truly prosper and, as is the case with so many today, they become republics which are not really “countries” at all anymore but simply an ideological camp, a massive social or public works network or simply a big business, not, what has been considered a natural, organic nation as understood through most of human history.