The Monarchic Ideal

I would like to start this article with a disclaimer. This is not in support of absolute monarchy. Or at least in our current world.

Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, believed that absolute monarchy was the best form of government. In his book, Leviathan, he created the idea of a human state of nature. This state was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Hobbes theorized that the way humans would leave the state of nature would be to give up some of their natural rights in exchange for protection and organization. Giving up their rights would create a monarch, in Hobbes' case, an absolute monarch.

When Hobbes was writing, the idea of an absolute monarch had already been established and accepted. James I was attempting to establish it in England. And the Bourbon line in France, along with the help of Cardinal Richelieu, had established one in France.

With a brief history of absolute monarchy aside, what makes an absolute monarchy? The standard definition is one whose power is not hampered by parliaments, nobles, or prior laws. Jean Bodin, a French philosopher, added four more aspects to royal authority. First, it is sacred. Second, it is paternal. Third, it is absolute. And fourth, it is subject to reason. These aspects, add a lot to the basic idea of absolute monarchy.

The biggest variable of any monarchy is the monarch himself (while herself can apply, throughout history it has mostly been himself). A monarch can be extremely successful, or can run the country into the ground. A monarch can have a strict set of morals, or can be a debouched tyrant. There is no true way to always pick the right monarch. Even one of the best monarchs can pass the throne to one of the worst. For example, the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher emperor who lived by a strict set of stoic ideals, forgone a set of adoptive succession which was a staple of the Five Good Emperors and picked his own son, the infamous Commodus, to rule (granted he was the only of the Five Good Emperors to have a son).

In a system of monarchy, it would seem that succession is the greatest issue. There is the possibility of the ruler changing while reigning. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Morals are something that might always changed. One can always be bribed, no matter the amount of money one has. Many monarchs also want more power. On the other hand, A universal absolute monarch would only be controlled by his or her morals.

A universal absolute monarch would have to be moral. Once such a ruler is found, established, and accepted, the world would go into a more peaceful, cooperative state. A universal absolute monarch governed by a strict code of morals, is truly the best form of government. Not hampered by seeking power or wealth, not hampered by politics or entanglements, and not hampered by needing to please everyone or needing to appease everyone. However, the workload would be enormous. The monarch would have to delegate responsibilities to people answerable only to the monarch and the monarch would have to make regular rounds about possible corruption. All authority would have to come from the monarch. In reality, one who can handle that kind of power does not exist, and finding people who can succeed the ruler without eventually creating another dynasty is extremely unlikely. While one extraordinary figure in history who could handle power for a time could exist, finding others is near impossible. Utilizing different aspects of systems put in place by rulers of vast multi-ethnic empires such as Alexander the Great, Augustus, The Five Good Emperors, Diocletian, Charlemagne,  Genghis Khan, the first ten Sultans of the Ottoman Empire, and even Charles V the Holy Roman Emperor. And using aspects of other successful rulers can a universal absolute monarchy be established.

However, this system would never exist in our world. Universal monarchy has always been feared. In history, states act like vectors, when one gets enough power to make a play for a universal monarchy, the others band together and neutralize the threat. The ancient world was full of this kind of power balancing. And even more recently, take the 30 years war as an example, or even Napoleon. And truly recently with the age of imperialism, Germany in the World Ward, or the U.S. and Russia in the Cold War. There's a reason the last person on the list of rulers of vast regions ended his reign in 1556 (granted it's probably also due to my lack of knowledge of Asian history). While alliances and unions can be created, the countries in those unions are still sovereign states.

In addition to a fear of universal monarchy, a general repudiation of monarchy has occurred in the past 100 or so years. And it seems like people are less likely to give up their natural rights than when in the state of nature. People just value their natural rights more and more. We'll never revert to the state of nature, but Machiavelli asserted that monarchy is the natural form of government.  He asserted that all government begins as monarchy, even republics, and will eventually end with monarchy once more. I have to agree with that assertion.

In reality, we are too different to unite completely. But if some person as described in this post were to gain power, we should hope they would have the morals and good sense to dole out their powers and abdicate, rather than die and leave a war for succession.