Hankering for Monarchy?
I found this group on Facebook whilst looking at something else:
Many of these arguments are easily refuted (and were, back in the 1700s, when the United States was justifying its independence). Yet there are now folks looking longingly for a single ruler, with all the trappings and ceremoniousness attached thereto.
Monarchy, in both its absolute and constitutional varieties, is the oldest, and by far the most effective, system of government. Every civilization in the world had once been ruled by a king, queen, emperor, prince, grand duke, sultan or emir – all of whom are latter-day manifestations of ancient tribal chiefs. The forms of government that have supplanted monarchical regimes have consistently demonstrated their inability to live up to the system they purportedly set out to improve. In contrast, time continues to be a testament to the efficacy of kingdoms.These are but a few of the virtues of the monarchical system:
- Monarchs are an enduring symbol of continuity and statehood. Thus, they provide a sense of unity and while crystallizing a national identity.
- A hereditary monarch is likely to be a more competent head-of-state than is an elected president, because the former has been prepared, from childhood, to serve as such.
- Owing to their fortune and status, monarchs have less of an incentive for corruption and accepting bribes.
- A monarchy is, in fact, less costly to maintain than a republic because it spares the state the expense of holding presidential elections, and because the royal family's private fortune may be enough for its own support, as against the public expenditures, in a republic, for the accommodations, pensions and other maintenance of incumbent and former presidents.
- Competition and criticism to which republican presidents typically are exposed, as elected officials and especially during the election campaigns themselves, damages the reputation and dignity of the head of state.
- Because republican presidents are typically members of a political party, while monarchs typically stand outside of politics, a president is less well able to serve as a neutral representative of a country and its people.
- Likewise, presidents are obliged to act in accord with the policies and ideas of their political parties, while monarchs can reign more independently of political considerations.
- Intermarriage between royal families often establishes cooperation and peaceful relations between the nations involved.
- In a republic the continual changes of head-of-state create political uncertainty, which contrasts with the symbolic continuity of having a monarch.
- It can be argued that monarchy actually guarantees political stability. History is replete with examples where the abolition of monarchy has spawned civil wars and the rise of totalitarian systems, such as Jacobinism in France, Nazism in Germany, Communism in Russia and China, and Islamic Fundamentalism in Iran. In contrast, nations that chose to retain their monarchies, such as Thailand & the Arab Gulf states, have remained relatively immune to the constant volatility that has plagued their respective regions.
- Historically, constitutional monarchies have made the smoothest transition to democratic rule (prime examples being the Nordic states). In fact, with the exception of post-war Italy and several former Commonwealth realms, no modern, democratic constitutional monarchy has voted to abolish itself. Instead constitutional monarchy has been overthrown against the will of the people.
With all this considered, it is not surprising that monarchy is the system of government preferred by God Himself. After all, His title is "King of the Universe" not "President of the Universe."