Down with the monarchy. Nothing personal against Queen Elizabeth II. On the contrary, of the members of the British royal family, she seemed to me to be one of the nicest. Furthermore, the life of any individual, noble or commoner, has intrinsic value, which makes its loss always regrettable.
But, if we stop to think about it, it is difficult to find arguments to morally support the maintenance of a monarchy in the middle of the 21st century.
The basic problem is that monarchies are founded on a legal distinction between citizens that is incompatible with the ideal of equality, which has become, in my view correctly, one of the main values worshiped by modernity. In monarchies, there is the sovereign; on a slightly lower scale, their family members; and, finally, the plebs. Each individual’s condition arises at birth, independent of innate or developed abilities, and there is nothing that can be done to change it.
If in the economy it is still possible to argue that allowing a modicum of inequality – whoever produces more or has better ideas earn more – helps to maintain the dynamism of the market and stimulate innovation, nothing similar happens in politics. I don’t see how to justify that the fact that someone is born into a specific family generates differences in their legal status.
On the contrary, what gives political dynamism to contemporary democratic societies is the possibility of disempowering rulers who are not doing well. It is very easy in parliamentarism, a little more difficult in presidentialism and almost impossible in monarchy.
Of course today, in Europe, where the functions of the remaining monarchs are only ceremonial, this is not so important. But it was a big problem in the times when kings ruled and ruled. If the genetic lottery produced an incompetent, the entire country had to put up with him indefinitely.
And this leads us to a paradox. If the monarchy is such a fossilized institution, how can one explain that it still exists in some of the most advanced societies on the planet, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Norway? First of all, care must be taken not to overestimate this role. These monarchies were successful, but it cannot be concluded that their political regime is superior. We always have Saudi Arabia to prove it.
Even in the northwestern corner of Europe, the only one where virtuous monarchies abound, things can be more complicated. The problem is the “confounding factors”. If we look at A (monarchical regime) and then B (high social development), this does not mean that A causes B. It is possible that both A and B are caused by a factor C that is not so evident. My hypothesis is that a reformist mentality prevails in this area.
Instead of promoting revolutions and trying to reinvent the wheel with each generation, these societies have become accustomed to advancing for incremental gains. Thus, instead of cutting off the heads of kings, they preferred to strip them of their powers, which were gradually transferred to more responsive political institutions. Pragmatically, the arrangement solved their problem well, even if it left them with an ideologically archaic institution that is the monarchy.
With a wealth of experience honed over 4+ years in journalism, I bring a seasoned voice to the world of news. Currently, I work as a freelance writer and editor, always seeking new opportunities to tell compelling stories in the field of world news.
