I don't know why, but I was thinking about the differences between monarchy and dictatorship. There's very little difference, but we confer more legitimacy on monarchy than dictatorship, and I wonder why.
Today, seven countries: Brunei, Eswatini, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Vatican City State, and the United Arab Emirates, remain absolute monarchies. The Vatican is usually counted among these, but it's actually more of an elective dictatorship.
If we look at Kim Il Jung, there's not a shred of difference between his rule and that of an absolute monarch. The North Korean dictatorship is hereditary, which means it's a monarchy in all but name.
Prior to William the Conqueror, Saxon kings had to be legitimised by a vote of the Witan, making the monarchy a constitutional monarchy. Following William's invasion, the Witan was relegated to merely a name and William, in effect, declared himself dictator for life and made the monarchy hereditary and absolute. Yes, it was hereditary prior to William, but still subject to the Witan's agreement and the Witan had the ultimate authority. That situation lasted till 1688, when England once again became a constitutional monarchy.
Which is more stable - a dictatorship or a monarchy? History would suggest that a monarchy is more stable, as the line of succession is fixed and stable, whereas there are many competing factions in the line of succession for a dictatorship - anyone can be a dictator, whereas only a few can be a possible monarch. It's when a line of succession is broken that countries undergo upheaval and possible civil war.
1 comment:
I'm not sure the English/British monarchy is entirely hereditary: when it throws up unsuitable candidates, the route to power is often a scenic one to a very distant relative e.g. George I. And in Anglo-Saxon times the crown often went sideways to a brother.
Post a Comment