Category: Democracy

Jagmeet Singh's Reply to the Monarchist League of Canada

12/7/2018

Photo Credit: Yvonne Bambrick

Recently, while doing an interview on the topic of the spending of the
former Governor General Adrienne
Clarkson, Mr. Singh stated that he
did not see the relevancy of the
monarchy and that he was a
republican. Various members of the
Monarchist League of Canada
sought clarification (and probably to
try and convince him to change his
mind). Below is the response that
they received and which the League
shared with its members at noon
today:

Thank you for taking the time to write. We appreciate your views on
the monarchy.
During a recent CTV interview, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh addressed
the concern over the excessive expenses of a former Governor General.
When the discussion led to the role of the monarchy in Canada,
Jagmeet Singh spoke about its relevancy in the 21st century, adding,
that while it may not be a pressing issue for most Canadians, he’s open
to hearing the views of others. But, he clearly said that getting involved
with this issue is not a priority for him or our Party.
Specifically, he said, “We’ve got a democracy and we’re proud of our
democracy, and I think that’s what most Canadians think is important
and I think we should focus on that.”
Jagmeet and his NDP team are staying focused on what’s important to
the lives of everyday Canadians—like paying for groceries and heating
costs, their health issues and those of a family member, and having
enough money to retire. Jagmeet is hearing those concerns as he meets
with Canadians in communities across Canada, listening to what they
need to make life better for their families.
And, he’s inviting all progressives to come together, to help make a
real difference—for more people today, and for future generations.
Thanks again for writing. In the weeks and months ahead, we hope we
can find common ground on other concerns facing our country.
All the best,
Office of Jagmeet Singh
Leader, Canada’s New Democrats

I am going to focus in on a couple small sections of this quote.
"We’ve got a democracy and we’re proud of our democracy,
and I think that’s what most Canadians think is important
and I think we should focus on that." Yes, we should. And a
study from 2008 might interest him. It came to several
interesting conclusions including that "direct election is
associated with increased voter fatigue and decreased
turnout in parliamentary elections by about seven
percentage points" and "because holding the presidency
provides parties with an electoral asset, direct and indirect
presidential elections can be equally contentious and
polarizing". Neither of which are improvements to Canadian
democracy.

Another study earlier this year found that,"We find strong
evidence that monarchies contribute to a greater protection
of property rights and higher standards of living through
each of the three theoretical mechanisms compared to all
republics. We also find that democratic-constitutional
monarchies perform better than non-democratic and
absolute monarchies when it comes to offsetting the negative
effects of the tenure and discretion of the executive branch."
So, yes, democracy makes a country function better but
monarchy makes a democracy function better.

The second section of Mr. Singh's reply I wanted to highlight
was his invitation to "all progressives to come together, to
help make a real difference—for more people today, and for
future generations." All well and good. His stance on the
monarchy is a hindrance to that goal. Because many potential
NDP voters see Canada's monarchy has being helpful to that
laudable goal.

For instance during the NDP Leadership Race Jonathan
Banks noted "I am not myself a member of the New
Democratic Party, but often find myself more sympathetic to
many of its policies than I am to those of the Liberals when
concerning the rights and concerns of the working classes,
and the little guy, generally. However, one reason I always
find myself cringing away from being able to actually
support the NDP is certain members’ stances on the
monarchy... I know that I and many people like me would
feel infinitely more comfortable with the NDP if it took a firm
public stance in favour of the Monarchy."

Darren Brierley likewise wrote to me stating "After reviewing
Jagmeet Singh's comments against the Monarchy I became
deeply concerned. As a Federal NDP supporter since Jack
Layton, I do not have confidence in a leader who does not
understand that the Canadian Crown is completely
independent and unique from the British Crown and of it's
powerful force for national unity and Canadian identity. I
certainly don't support someone who doesn't respect or even
understand the Canadian Crown."

There is a slight irony that while repeated political quizzes
over many years consistently place me in the same ideological
camp as the NDP, I have never come close to voting for them.
I find his views on the monarchy highly regrettable but that's
just my view. You know...since he's open to hearing the views
of others and all that.

I wanted to take a second to talk about Patreon. I
write this blog for the sheer joy of it and will
continue to do so even if it doesn't make me a
cent. However, the Monarchist League of
Canada does have a (rather neglected)
Patreon. They do a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to
the defence of Canada's monarchy as this timeline and
various other examples can attest. If you are a regular
reader I would like to encourage you to donate to the League.
Every dollar donated helps educate Canadians about their
monarchy and dispel republican ignorance. And that is a
good thing.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

1 Comment

The People's Party and the Monarchy

9/15/2018

1 Comment

Maxime Bernier

On September 14th former Conservative
Party leadership hopeful Maxime Bernier
announced the founding of a new party.
This 'People's Party' still has not fully
defined its party policy. Mr. Bernier doesn't
give me much to go on either. As some
might recall I surveyed all of the
Conservative Party leadership candidates a
while back. Bernier's response left his
own feelings pretty much unknown. This is
of small, but persistent, concern to me.

I am concerned as he is essentially creating the new party's
identity himself. While, in the past, he stated he would not do
anything to change the position of the monarchy in Canada,
that was during a leadership race for a party that has a ton of
monarchist members. The makeup of this new party will also
be in flux for a while. With so many unknowns I have written
the party and asked for clarification on their stance. I will post
an update should I receive a response.

While this blog takes no stance on which
party people should vote for (there are
monarchists in every party after all), it
would be preferable for this new party to
have a strongly supportive stance in regards to Canada's
monarchy. As such, if you are a monarchist as well as a
member (or supporter) of the PPC consider making your voice
heard that you want a party that respects Canada's
monarchical traditions.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

1 Comment

Book Review: Monarchisms in the Age of Enlightenment

10/12/2015

0 Comments

Front Cover

There is a predominant narrative
about the Enlightenment which
emphasizes the growth and
development of republicanism to
the near exclusion of all other
political theories emerging during
this period. This book attempts to
address this one-sided narrative by
examining how monarchists were
adapting their ideas to the trials of
the age. It does so by examining a
cross-section of monarchist
thought from the period.

Each chapter is organized around one or two monarchist
thinkers (although in a few cases it is unclear whether the
writers were monarchists or simply did not reject monarchy
as a viable system). The scholars covered are; Benedictus de
Spinoza, Pierre Bayle, David Hume, François Fénelon,
Edmund Burke, Montesquieu, Giambattista Vico, Étienne
Bonnot de Condillac, David Hartley, Bishop Thomas Newton,
Manuel Lacunza, Andre Roger, Samuel Pufendorf, Jens
Schielderup Sneedorff, Tyge Rothe, Paul-Henri Mallet, Henry
Fielding, Friedrich Nicolai, Thomasius, Johann Christoph
Woellner, Ernst Ferdinand Klein, & Johann August Eberhard.

If many of those names are unfamiliar to you I would not be
surprised. This is not an entry level text, both in subject
matter and writing style. Each section is an essay written by
a different academic. As such it is both wonderfully sourced
and a tad dry at times.

Themes include the the proper role of the monarch, aspects
of the ideal constitution, what government leads to a well-
ordered state, and other issues.

As a source for gaining insight into the evolution and diversity
of monarchism in the past it is useful. But if you are looking
for something to use in modern arguments to support
monarchy you will be disappointed. But since this isn't the
book's stated aim perhaps I am expecting too much.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

0 Comments

Executive Effect: An Update on the State of Academic Research on Monarchy

9/24/2015

0 Comments

I turned up two new studies
focusing on the effects that
a monarchy has on its
country. The first looks at
whether it matters if a
monarch has constraints on
the use of their power. The
second is a look at the
lingering effects the old
Habsburg Empire has had
on its successor states.

The Logic of Hereditary Rule: Theory and Evidence
is a study looking at the years between 1848 and 2004. It
makes two key arguments:
-Hereditary rulers lead to economic growth, but only when
executive constraints are weak.
-Economic downturn is the main reason why monarchies fall.

While on the face of it this study looks like a defence for
absolute monarchy an inquiry to one of the paper's authors
painted a far different picture. I was curious what was meant
by 'executive constraints' and whether or not it included
informal rules and convention. Here is what Prof. Tim Besley
wrote in reply:

Prof. Tim Besley

"Sadly we only have mainly
formal constraints from the Polity
IV data -- although some "custom
and practice" does go into it if you
look at the codebook. However, it
is mainly formal constraints. In
the case of both Belgium and
Canada, there are string
constraints today but going back
in history that would not be the
case."

In short the higher level of economic growth observed would
also effect constitutional monarchies where the constraints
are informal (such as Britain [and presumably Canada]). Thus
it applies to most monarchies.

The second finding buttresses an argument I have made for a
while: monarchy and democracy make each other function
better. Whenever we have an economic downturn we don't ditch the monarch, we ditch the party in power. Democracy
helps the monarch be a better symbol of stability by negating the effects economic downturns have on monarchs.

The second study I found is The Empire Is Dead, Long
Live the Empire! Long-Run Persistence of Trust and
Corruption in the Bureaucracy. The study examined the
countries that once made up the Austria-Hungarian Empire
and compares them to neighboring countries that did not. It
finds that the countries that were once under Habsburg rule
retain greater public trust and have lower corruption levels.
The theory being that the empire's relatively competent
bureaucracy has had a lasting effect on the region.

While the study is fairly limited in scope it does lead to
interesting questions about the heritage monarchy has gifted
present day countries (many of them republics). The studies I
have posted over the last two years show monarchy has
concrete advantages over republics. This study indicates those
advantages carry over. At least for a time. Are modern-day
republics coasting on their monarchical legacy? Further
research would be interesting.

As always I have added the new studies to Useful Links.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

0 Comments

Republicans & Democracy

8/10/2015

0 Comments

"Debate is at the heart of democracy, or
should be. But appeals to democracy are
usually designed to shut debate down,
not to deepen it." ~Paul Wells

So the Canadian election is underway (number 42 for those
keeping track). The candidates are slowly revving up their
campaigns and the media has gone into full election mode. I thought this might be a good time to get into a topic I've
mulling over for some time.

Republicans like to say that the monarchy is an undemocratic
institution. I would like to dissect that claim.

When To Elect

For starters republicans tend to base their claims on the
position being unelected. The monarch/governor general is
neither the only unelected position in the government nor the
most common. That distinction goes to the entire judicial branch. They have even rejected laws passed by a democratic
Parliament (something the Monarch of Canada has never
done). And yet I don't see anyone clamoring to elect the
Supreme Court. And why would they? There is understanding (based in part on observing our neighbors to the South) that
electing members of the judiciary would not help the courts
do a better job and might in fact damage them through
partisanship. There is an understanding that, under specific
circumstances, it is not desirable to elect a position.

We choose to elect Members of Parliament because we
recognize that partisan competition fuels debate and helps
keep everyone on their best behavior. We do this with the full knowledge that said competition can, and does, create
divisions in society (as the last 10 years makes clear). The
office of the monarch is not a position that requires elections
as it is not a position that crafts policy. The Crown is there to
provide stability, non-partisan leadership and to represent
Canada. It is also the hidden emergency button in case
Canada goes off the rails. None of these roles are enhanced
by elections.

And, as I have noted before, directly-elected heads of state
have been shown to cause a 5-7% decrease in voter turnout
for legislative elections. Indirectly-elected presidents also
have difficulties it has been found.

When To Inherit

Another claim that republicans make is that the monarchy
is somehow undemocratic by virtue of being hereditary. This
is expressed as the monarchy being an "anachronism" or
"medieval" institution. You want to know what other
position is hereditary? Citizenship. Once gained, citizenship
is passed on regardless of qualifications or behavior. It also
confers specific rights on its holders (voting rights for one).
But citizens don't hold a place in government, I can hear you saying. Don't they? The republican ideal is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. In the republican
ideal the people are central to the formation and execution of government. And a government based on the people's
participation cannot escape being based on the hereditary
rights of citizenship.

The monarchist ideal is different. Coming out of the Medieval
period there was an understanding within English practice
(and to a degree, in all of Europe) that the monarch must
consult with the people in governing the country. In Canada
we have a supreme right to be consulted as subjects of Her Majesty. Incidentally the monarch shares this right to have
consultation. In fact the monarch's rights are often a mirror of
the people's rights. Another example is the coronation oath
and the citizenship oath. The monarch promises in the
coronation oath to reign in accordance with Canada's laws
and customs while in the citizenship oath the people promise
much the same towards the monarch.

So why is this important? Because a government that can
reject the monarchy on the basis of its hereditary nature can
reject a citizen's unqualified right to vote on the same
grounds. We use hereditary selection when we want to
prevent an office, group, or position from becoming
monopolized by interest groups. The citizenship can never be
cut down to only people who believe the same things because
it is hereditary. The monarchy cannot become a prize for a
specific partisan viewpoint to capture for the same reason.

The Will Of The People

Some knowledgeable republicans object to monarchy based
on its association with divine right. While divine right did
play a part in the monarchy's history, it was neither a primary
justification for monarchical rule or even an uncontested one.

It is also not a current justification. Monarchs in Britain or in
Canada have never reigned by divine right. This is because in
1688 the Glorious Revolution occurred. It fundamentally and
definitively changed the monarchy from being based on
divine right to being based on the consent of Parliament.
While certain phrases such as 'by the grace of god' have been
kept they hide the fact that the monarch reigns by the consent
of Parliament, not the authority of God.

While the Rob Fords of the world can cling to power through
appeals to their democratic selection the monarchy is in a far
more precarious position. A monarch who tried to abuse power would simply be gone. Without democratic legitimacy
the monarch is counterfactually more accountable to the
people.

A related difficulty is when two democratically-elected offices
come into conflict. With both able to claim to represent the
people the argument can become messy and often boils down
to who can better use the powers of the state. The monarch
has no such recourse and must acquiesce to the democratic
office.

Republicans should not be allowed to get away with using
appeals to democracy to shut down debate. Monarchists can,
and should, make the argument that, far from being an undemocratic institution, the monarchy is Canada's most unappreciated democratic institution.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

0 Comments

Why Saudi Arabia Can Not, And Will Not, Democratize

5/30/2015

0 Comments

A great deal of effort has been
expended over the years
trying to get the Kings of
Saudi Arabia to introduce key
democratic freedoms. These
efforts miss a key reality
about the monarchs of Saudi
Arabia:
they are themselves trapped in a government system with
little ability to change it. It might seem strange to think of an
absolute monarch as being 'trapped' so I will explain.

Consider the cases of Jordan and Morocco. While neither is a
true democracy, both have moved in that direction and are
now only constrained by certain cultural realities that I will
come back to shortly. Monarchs in both countries have been
able to grant democratic freedoms so why are the Kings of
Saudi Arabia constrained? The granting of democratic
freedoms is a power-sharing arrangement. In both Jordan
and Morocco the Kings rule with their families playing little part in government. Granting democratic freedoms can be
done as quickly as the kings desire to do so and can be done
very quickly if need be. In Saudi Arabia it is much different.
The Al Saud hold all key government posts as well as
determining who the next king will be. Democratic reforms
need widespread support among members of the royal family
and cannot be brought about quickly. Most importantly, no
democratic reforms can be brought about by the king without
lessening the power of the Al Saud.

King Salman

On one hand filling all government
positions with family members has
ensured the monarchy will not be
overthrown as several other Arab
monarchies were. On the other
hand this institutionalized
nepotism has created unbelievable
amounts of corruption and made
peaceful, top-directed reforms all
but impossible.

The cause of Saudi Arabia's woes is the tribalism present
throughout the country and other states in the region. Kinship
plays an important role in how government works in Saudi
Arabia. It is often the case that 'issues' tend to take a backseat
to 'allegiances'. Indeed, it is the ability of rulers to keep local
leaders 'onside' that determines stability. This often is
accomplished through payouts. In Jordan and Morocco the
problem is less pronounced but still hinders democratization. Jordan is noted for having high levels of corruption despite efforts to stop it.

Strictly speaking, in a tribal society nepotism, favoritism, and
bribes are not corruption as we consider them. But neither are
they useful for the operation of a state. Saudi Arabia has been
able to use its immense oil wealth to ensure the system works
smoothly but that can only work so long. Ironically, the Al Saud is the greatest hindrance to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

In most respects the Al Saud have come to resemble a type of
nobility within Saudi Arabia. There are a few ways the Kings
of Saudi Arabia (and it will take more than one) can go about
freeing themselves from this 'tyranny of cousins'. For starters
they need to consolidate rule within one branch of the family.
As long as the Al Saud is consulted every 10-30 years on who
the next king will be they will wield tremendous power.
Getting them to give up this power will be tricky but it may
well involve some camel trading (not literally...). In exchange for the office of the king being made hereditary in one line
the other members of the family might be given separate hereditary titles, lands, and a British-style House of Lords.
Now, it might seem this would entrench the power of the Al
Saud, and it would, but only in the short term. It would also
accomplish two key goals: allow a truly democratic lower
house to be created and sow factionalism among the Al Saud.
In truth such factionalism already exists but is muted in the interest of family unity. Separate titles and lands would
undermine this unity. Realistically, most government positions would still be filled by the Al Saud. Much like the British House of Lords once was the 'House of Al Saud' will be
in a vice-grip of a (still relatively powerless) House of Commons and a king who in his own interest can make common cause with the elected representatives. At the same time, the factions within the Al Saud will start looking to the elected chamber for allies. When this happens the collective power of the Al Saud will be broken.

Not enough emblems have scimitars these days.

Now the scenario above is only one of several that could play out and even this one has not been taken to its end point of producing a constitutional monarchy for Saudi Arabia. Some might ask why, if I value democracy so much, I don't just call for a revolution? Fair question. Here is my answer: win or lose it will be a bloodbath resulting in a military dictatorship. The
Al Saud currently controls all aspects of government and it is
in their interest to put down any revolution that starts up. If
a revolution were to miraculously succeed it would face a number of issues: the cultural divide between the Hejaz and
the Najd, the tribalism I mentioned earlier, the clerical faction (which I didn't deal with here but could be dealt with in a similar manner to what I suggested for the Al Saud), and the
real possibility some member of the Al Saud will make
attempt #4 at establishing a kingdom. These issues would be hard for an experienced republic to deal with let alone one
just set up. So as happened in Egypt the people will have a republican strong man as their leader. In the modern world
revolutions don't produce better monarchies, they produce worse republics.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

0 Comments

Republicans & Curiosity

1/23/2015

2 Comments

"There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact." ~Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Over the last few months of using the academic/empirical
evidence I've gathered to confront republicans I've noticed
something rather odd. The republicans I've talked to don't
seem to want to examine the evidence presented. There
appears to be the attitude that the evidence must be wrong
before they even see it. I find this odd as you would think
republicans would be interested in better understanding their
preferred form of government (the studies also have some
interesting things to say in regards to the potential differences
between legislative and presidential republics). I find this
attitude problematic as I hold to Aristotle's maxim that "it is
the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a
thought without accepting it." I would like to think that
republicans have come to hold their views after thorough
investigation of all options. But to hold this view raises the
question of why the attitude described above exists at all?

A recent book by Ian Leslie may provide some insight. Titled
"Curiosity: The Desire To Know And Why Our Future
Depends On It" it argues that certain circumstances can
kill off curiosity in people and that curiosity is a skill that
needs to be honed. I argue that the unique features and
history of republicanism make it a 'curiosity killer'.

Ian Leslie notes that curiosity can be killed by a lack of knowledge on a particular subject. Knowledge it seems is a starting point for further knowledge. We need to know just enough information to know there is something we don't know. People then naturally seek to close these information gaps. If people have no knowledge of the subject matter there will be little desire to learn more. Citizens of a republic, or even a monarchy where the role of the crown is ignored, can suffer from similar circumstances. Within republics it makes little sense to study monarchy as a system of government in a civics course since their system is not a monarchy. Likewise, within monarchies the view that the monarchy is irrelevant to civics leads to it being pushed aside. As a graduate of the New Brunswick school system I can attest to the lack of instruction on the role of the sovereign in government.

This leaves universities holding the ball. Here once again curiosity is strangled by a lack of knowledge. As I've noted before there is a lack of academic research on monarchy as a government form. The field has only been around for twenty years (and more realistically the last five). That said a few people do become monarchists in university (I did). These people tend to be from the fields of history or political science since it can be hard to discuss either without some knowledge of monarchy, at least in Canada. Within republics, however, political science has little reason to deal with monarchy which leaves history.

But being an expert in a field is no guarantee a person will be of a curious mind. As Ian Leslie argues we need to be T-shaped people. Not generalists or specialists but both. Deep knowledge of a single subject combined with broad knowledge of all subjects.

Republicanism has yet another advantage in the fight however. Republicanism is very thoroughly conflated with democracy. The Curiosity-Drive Model states that curiosity results from experiences that are novel and complex create a sensation of uncertainty in the brain, a sensation perceived to be unpleasant. Curiosity alleviates this by helping motivate us to find out more. The key word above is 'uncertainty'. So what happens if you are certain that some idea is right/wrong? Would you not be less curious as a result?

By conflating republicanism (which monarchists want to challenge) with democracy (which has a high certainty of being correct) republicans have made republicanism hard to challenge in their minds. Not only this but it makes defending monarchy more difficult as the conflation renders monarchy opposed to democracy even though it is not. Republics can make the situation worse by their habit of glorifying their revolutions. Certainly the stories of brave patriots fighting off evil foes and establishing a republic make for good reading. But they also make discussing ideas that may be counter to the narrative harder to do. If you strongly believe something is wrong or undesirable you are not going to be willing to look at it further in most cases.

Further problems arise when you consider that many consider monarchy irrelevant such as Prof. Kuehnelt-Leddihn who wrote in 1999 that monarchy is “a totally obsolete, even childish, institution”. All of which raises certainty that republicanism is correct and lowers curiosity about monarchy as a competing system. With republicanism as consensus for much of the world more than ever we should beware the obvious fact.

So what does this mean for us monarchists? It may mean we need to refine how we approach debating republicans. There is a divide that needs to be bridged. A start would be getting them to admit that democracy and republicanism are not the same thing. Anyways, I hope I gave you something to think about. Stay curious, my friends.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

2 Comments

Queen Victoria’s Constitutional Monarchy

1/15/2015

0 Comments

By: Kevin Gillespie

Her Majesty Queen Victoria was born in 1819 and was barely 18 years old when she succeeded her uncle, King William IV, to the British Throne. The Victorian era was the name given to her nearly 64 year reign, which lasted from 1837 until 1901. It was the longest reign of any English or British Monarch in history, and it was possibly the greatest period of stability and progress that Britain* had ever known until the 20th
century. During this era, the British Monarchy remained relatively secure in its foundations. This, however, was not the case for much of the rest of the world; republican sentiment was growing and many foreign monarchies were falling. Royalty from 14 different monarchies visited London for Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee in 1887, only four of which have survived to the modern day.[1] Britain largely remained a
bastion of pro-monarchical sentiment in a world where the republican debate was becoming more and more prominent. Queen Victoria herself, along with the social, political and economic progress that was allowed to flourish under her Constitutional Monarchy, was an important factor contributing to this phenomenon. If not for her long reign, monarchism in Britain may not have been nearly as strong as it was at her death in 1901, and the 16 Commonwealth Realms in existence today might have had a completely
different history.

The British Monarchy, however, had not always enjoyed such widespread support among its people. It was widely acknowledged among British subjects that, with few
exceptions, Queen Victoria’s predecessors since the reign of Queen Elizabeth had been bad rulers who lacked moral character. The official biographer of Queen Victoria and
King Edward VII, Sir Sidney Lee, even called her three most recent predecessors “an imbecile, a profligate and a buffoon.”[2] In previous two reigns, the House of Hanover had been ripe with sexual, financial and personal scandals, and at Queen Victoria’s accession the popularity of the Monarchy was low and republican sentiment was increasing. As the popular Victorian writer, Charlotte M. Yonge, said of her accession:

Afterwards she went to St. James’s Palace to show herself at the window while
proclamation of her accession was made by the heralds, but there were no great
acclamations, and she was observed to look pale. Loyalty had been a good deal trifled away by the two latter kings, and she had to win it back again.[3]

And win it back again she did. By the end of her reign Queen Victoria had become the most popular Monarch since Queen Elizabeth I, as well as one of the best known people in the world. Frank Hardie writes that “in 1901 it [republicanism] not only ceased to be a faith, but had once again become a heresy.”[4] The following journal entry by Queen Victoria during the Golden Jubilee illustrates the incredible difference 50 years had made in the popular support for the Monarchy:

No one ever, I believe, has met with such an ovation as was given to me, passing through those six miles of streets… the crowds were quite indescribable, and their enthusiasm truly marvellous and deeply touching. The cheering was quite deafening and every face seemed to be filled with real joy… [5]

Queen Victoria’s accession marked the turning point in the perception of the Monarchy among British subjects. Up until that time, the popular assessment of the Royal Family had been one of “general moral squalor,”[6] but from the moment of her accession onwards, a change began to take place in the manner in which royalty was spoken of in Britain. It was Queen Victoria’s conduct, in public and in private life, which
was the main cause of this change.[7] There was, however, an exception to this trend which must be mentioned. In 1861, Queen Victoria’s husband, Prince Albert, died of typhoid fever, and his devastated wife entered a state of mourning in which she wore black for the rest of her life. She also began a long period of self-imposed seclusion in which she continued her official duties, but stayed away from most public appearances. After the Prince Consort’s death, Queen Victoria expressed her strong sense of duty “in an aloof and private performance with no audience to encourage and appreciate,”[8] and this long withdrawal from public life fostered criticism and encouraged the growth of republicanism in Britain.[9] Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee, however, almost single-handedly wiped out the republican sentiment which had been allowed to cultivate during her seclusion. Forced to face the world once more, her subjects confirmed their love for their Queen through immense demonstrations of loyalty, and when the Jubilee was over,
she never again reverted to her former isolation.[10] As H. B. Brooks-Baker writes:

Queen Victoria’s subjects were also immensely loyal to her, not only because of their love and admiration for the monarch, but because the mystique of the crown had mesmerised them. When she returned to the Palace after her last Jubilee, she was choked with emotion by the demonstrations of loyalty manifested by her loving subjects. The success of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee would be remembered for ever. The Queen recognised that the republicanism which was rampant before 1887 had vanished for ever.[11]

In 1897, one of Queen Victoria’s subjects, Charles Bullock, B.D., writes that “Queen Victoria has remained the central, the most prominent, and permanent figure gathering to her, as the years passed, more and more of the loyalty and affection of the people over whom she rules.”[12] This increasing trend of pro-monarchical sentiments from the beginning to the end of Queen Victoria’s reign can largely be attributed to the Queen’s personal character. As was stated above, Queen Victoria was deemed by her subjects to be of a more scrupulous moral fibre than that of her predecessors. While the previous Kings had been considered licentious, deceitful or shifty, [13] Queen Victoria was viewed as their polar opposite. Charlotte M. Yonge praises the Queen in her book, “The Victorian Half Century,” writing:

May we be thankful that through this critical period, when every throne around us has been shaken, and many overthrown, that we should have been blessed with a Sovereign whose personal character commands not only loyalty, but love and reverence, whose heart beats for all that is high and noble, who sympathises with all suffering, guides all wholesome effort, and discourages all that is foul or cruel.[14]

But it was not only her perceived superior moral fibre that produced the admiration in her subjects; it was also the Queen’s extreme sense of duty. An article, written in 1900, and featuring in The Cosmopolitan, expresses this sense of duty nicely, stating that “Her Majesty… has taken a far closer, keener, more continuous interest in the government of her empire than any of her Ministers.”[15] And the Times writes, in 1887, that from the moment of her accession onwards “the Queen has been deeply impressed with the responsibilities of power, and has held her sovereignty to be a sacred trust for the benefit of the peoples under her rule.”[16]

Queen Victoria’s sense of morals and duty were important in the resurgence of the pro-monarchical sentiment that had dissipated under the rule of her predecessors. This personal character, when combined with the incredible length of her reign, helped her to become a living institution representing the glory and superiority of the British Empire. At the time of her accession, public support for the Monarchy was dwindling, but 60 years on, during her Diamond Jubilee, Queen Victoria had become the most significant symbol of Imperial unity in the British Empire.[17] As Herbert Tingsten puts it in his book, “Victoria and the Victorians”:

There were few among the thousands sharing in the rejoicing of 1897 who had not beheld the Queen for the better part of their lives as an enduring symbol of Empire, indeed, most of them had been born during her reign. Other public figures had shone for a while and then vanished, but the Queen lived on, the object from year to year of constant publicity, with the Court Circular and the newspapers announcing daily what she did and whom she received.[18]

It was only natural for Queen Victoria to be associated with her Empire in this way. By the time of her second Jubilee, few people in Britain, or indeed the world, could remember a time in which Queen Victoria had not reigned as Queen, and much of the Empire itself had been acquired after she ascended the throne. Eighteen territories in all, a quarter of the people in the world, and nearly a quarter of the land mass were under her rule. The Jubilee celebrations of 1897 were not merely celebrating the 60th year of Queen Victoria’s reign; they were, in reality, a demonstration of the might and importance of the
British Empire.[19] The Queen’s constant reign had transformed the Monarchy into the living embodiment of the British Empire; it was impossible for the people to take pride in one without the other. As the Times put it, “everybody feels that the Queen is something unique, something extraordinary, something of which all the world envies us the possession; and the multitude exults in possessing it.”[20]

Under Queen Victoria the Monarchy had become a National and Imperial symbol, but the symbolic nature of her reign was not the only reason for the popularity of the Monarchy in Britain. Absolute monarchy had been absent in Britain for many years, but at the time of Queen Victoria’s accession, constitutional monarchy was still in the process of evolving into what it has become today. By the end of her reign, however, it was widely believed by her common subjects, as well as by many politicians, that until Queen Victoria, “no constitutional Monarch [had] shown a more consistent respect for popular liberties or a clearer conception of royal duties.”[21] The Times writes that:

At the very outset, Her Majesty grasped the true idea of her constitutional position, and from that position she has never swerved. Her work has been neither to initiate
movements nor to resist them, but to moderate them. In her relations with her Ministers she has always maintained, and never overstepped, her constitutional rights; and her extraordinary knowledge of precedents—for her memory is as remarkable as her experience is long—has always given her a great advantage in any discussion.[22]

Many of her subjects viewed her like a mother to the people, “ready to do her people’s will when that will has been good,” but restraining them “from committing great follies and mistakes.”[23] Politicians might come and go, but it was the Monarch who remained the permanent guardian of Britain’s constitution.[24] One contemporary writer at the time compared Queen Victoria’s role as Monarch to the role of the editor-in-chief of a newspaper, writing that:

When the staff (as sometimes happens) differ among themselves, she can, and usually does, exercise the casting vote. In the times of political interregnum, while the nation is engaged in changing the temporary staff, she takes the whole control of the paper, and carries it on till her new assistant is appointed. Such an analogy at least enables us to form some idea of the immensely important part which the Queen had played in the government and development of the British Empire since she came to the throne.[25]

In other words, Queen Victoria’s role was believed to be of crucial constitutional importance. If a Prime Minister died or retired, or if no political party possessed an overall majority in the House of Commons, most politicians believed that an individual who was above party politics was required to arrange the consultations that might lead to a workable ministry.[26] Her life-long position as Monarch also gave Queen Victoria incredible insight and experience, giving her the ability to counsel and persuade her Ministers in affairs of state.[27] A letter written to the Queen in 1874 by her Prime
Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, exemplifies the important role that she was believed to play in the government:

Your Majesty has, sometimes, deigned to assist Mr Disraeli with your counsel, and he believes he may presume to say, with respectful candour, that your Majesty cannot but be aware of how highly Mr Disraeli appreciates your Majesty’s judgement and almost unrivalled experience of public life.[28]

It is undoubtedly true that Queen Victoria played a significant role in many of the political decisions of her day. Even if some of her subjects were not entirely happy with her interventions, most of them were willing to maintain the status quo, as no alternative form of government seemed appealing. Obviously there was no going back to the absolute monarchy of the past, and the other alternative, the Republican Movement, was
becoming less attractive every day. A stable constitutional monarchy—and Britain’s government was stable; there had been no constitutional crisis worth mentioning during
the whole of Queen Victoria’s 63 year reign[29]—was considered by many to be superior to a republic. Ever since the establishment of the French First Republic in 1792, France had become the epitome of governmental instability, systematically alternating between republic, empire and monarchy for most of the 19th century. The other large republic of the times was the United States of America, which was engaged in a bloody Civil War between 1861 and 1865. The republics of South America were shown to be even less
stable. Queen Victoria and the Monarchy, on the other hand, lived on as a symbol of Britain’s permanent institutions. Politicians might come and go, but the Queen was the
symbol of the state and its long and glorious history.[30] As Frank Hardie said, “it is now fairly easy to see why this Republican movement came to nothing. At that time the first French Revolution still spread alarm among conservatively minded people in the same
way as the Russian Revolution to-day.”[31]

Under Queen Victoria’s rule, Britain’s Constitutional Monarchy was allowed to evolve and flourish into the political system shared by the Commonwealth Realms today. This stable government helped foster political, economic and social gains that were unrivalled anywhere else in Europe, if not the world. During her long reign there had been progress in almost every field; democratic government had increased, and the standard of living among Queen Victoria’s subjects had risen. Charles Bullock, B.D. mentions some of these reforms in “The Queen’s Resolve”:

Political changes are almost impossible to chronicle. When the Queen came to the throne the first Reform Bill was only five years old. It was thirty years before the borough householder was enfranchised, and the complete enfranchisement of the county householder is now an accomplished fact. The Corn Laws have been abolished, Free Trade has been established, our financial system reorganised, and, greatest and most beneficial change of all, education has been made universal.[32]

Queen Victoria’s reign had been one of unequalled achievements, and her subjects had little reason to be discontent. As Charlotte M. Yonge says, “the Victorian era will be remembered as a period of great progress in all respects. Perhaps no fifty years in the whole history of the world has produced such changes, affecting all classes in their domestic life and prosperity.”[33]

The long reign of Queen Victoria had not only played an integral role in fostering the pro-monarchical attitude of her subjects, but it has helped to preserve the popularity of the future British Monarchy in the 20th century. The Queen’s exceptional character had helped to redeem the reputation of the Royal Family after it had been trifled away by her predecessors, and her long reign had transformed her into the living embodiment of the British Empire. Under Queen Victoria’s rule constitutional monarchy had evolved
into what it has become today, allowing democracy and a higher standard of living to flourish. The Victorian era had been one of tremendous progress, and by the time of Queen Victoria’s death in 1901, there was no republican movement of any significance anywhere in Britain. Queen Victoria’s subjects had learned to love the Monarchy while she reigned, and this did not stop upon her death. Tingsten writes that:

The personal devotion inspired by Queen Victoria in her subjects can be more fully
understood by comparing it with the similar, though less fervently expressed popularity of her successors to the throne. As if some of the Queen’s own popularity had rubbed off on her descendants, those of them who have reigned in the twentieth century have been accorded their own share of loyal admiration and homage at their accessions, coronations and jubilees.[34]

Queen Victoria’s influence has continued to live on long after her death, with all of her successors† enjoying widespread support in Britain, not to mention in many of the Dominions. Even today, the sense of duty and moral character which marked her reign is appreciated, with Tingsten saying that the current Monarch, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, “seemed a sort of reincarnation of her great-grandmother as a young woman and a reminder that the figure of Queen Victoria is still at the heart of the persisting English liking for royalty.”[35] If not for the incredible reign of Queen Victoria, the monarchist cause would not have been in nearly as good a standing as it was at the beginning of the 20th century, nor as it currently is, at the beginning of the 21st century.

0 Comments

Crowned Democracy: An Update on the State of Academic Research on Monarchy

11/15/2014

5 Comments

In a previous article I lamented the lack of research on what effects having a monarchy has on a country. Since then I have come across a few more studies outlining advantages monarchies possess. These studies suggest that monarchies tend towards healthier democratic practices. It is of some passing interest that none of these studies set out to prove anything about monarchies. In one case the researcher even seemed surprised at the results.

The first study is Presidents with Prime Ministers: Do Direct Elections Matter? From the title you can probably tell that the author did not set out to study constitutional monarchies. In fact they are dealt with after the fact in a footnote. The end conclusion is that presidential republics suffer more voter fatigue and a drop in votes for legislative elections of about 5-7% than either constitutional monarchies or legislative republics. (UPDATE: While the original post uses 'presidential' and 'legislative' descriptors it should in fact be 'directly-elected' and 'indirectly-elected' respectively. While most legislative republics use indirect election via a legislature, some do not.)

This is a serious issue for republicans. The current prevailing model put forward by (Canadian) republicans is that we could become a republic simply by making the Governor General an elected position. However, as the above study demonstrates, this would be harmful to our democracy (which may already suffer from some voter fatigue due to federalism). To support this option puts republicans in the uncomfortable position of advocating making our democracy worse, not better. So how about election by Parliament? This has its own problems. Politicians are likely to never support such a model until the Senate issue is settled and we have proportional representation. Going ahead without reforming these two things would put the governing party in a dictatorial position of having unlimited control of all three parts of Parliament. A second issue concerns whether Canadians would support such a 'politician's republic'. Indeed, it was the Australians preference for a presidential republic (in contrast to their leaders) that helped save their monarchy.

The second study is Constitutional Power and Competing Risks: Monarchs, Presidents, Prime Ministers, and the Termination of East and West European Cabinets. The study points out that while monarchs often possess powers comparable to those of strong presidential systems they behave more like presidents of legislative republics. However, there still turned out to be a difference:

Via the Washington Post

As the chart shows, constitutional monarchy was the only government form where early elections were the preferred method discretionary government replacement. Both legislative and presidential republics have a strong preference for choosing a new government from Parliament without resorting to an election. Therefore, if you consider consulting the people more often to be more democratic you must also conclude that constitutional monarchies have a leg up in this area.

The third study is Determinants of generalized trust: A cross-country comparison. This study doesn't deal with democracy directly but with how much people in a country trust each other and why (trust being an important factor in many economic and social considerations). According to this study there are only a limited number of factors that appear to increase trust among the populous. Both greater equality of wealth and having a monarchy were found to increase trust levels. And since it is possible (despite what republicans like to claim) to be both a monarchy and highly equal it makes sense that the three Scandinavian monarchies are at the top of the trust index (and most other indexes).

Notably, being a democracy didn't increase how much people trusted each other. That is not to say its not important. Trust is thought to build political institutions, of which democracy is one. So anything that increases trust strengthens a countries democracy since the people have the firm belief their fellow citizens aren't out to screw them.

This study dovetails nicely with the previous study I looked at. One of the theories it suggested was that monarchies actually liberalized earlier than republics. Taken together it is reasonable to suggest that if a country is going to become a democracy doing so as a monarchy will be less painful overall.

It is becoming increasingly clear as I research that keeping Canada's monarchy safe from republicans isn't just about protecting our traditions, it is about preserving the quality of our democracy.

As always, the new studies have been added to Useful Links.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

5 Comments

Jagmeet Singh's Reply to the Monarchist League of Canada

The People's Party and the Monarchy

Book Review: Monarchisms in the Age of Enlightenment

Executive Effect: An Update on the State of Academic Research on Monarchy

Republicans & Democracy

"Debate is at the heart of democracy, or
should be. But appeals to democracy are
usually designed to shut debate down,
not to deepen it." ~Paul Wells

When To Elect

When To Inherit

The Will Of The People

Why Saudi Arabia Can Not, And Will Not, Democratize

Republicans & Curiosity

"There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact." ~Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Queen Victoria’s Constitutional Monarchy

Crowned Democracy: An Update on the State of Academic Research on Monarchy

About

Archives

Categories

"Debate is at the heart of democracy, orshould be. But appeals to democracy areusually designed to shut debate down,not to deepen it." ~Paul Wells

When To Elect

When To Inherit

The Will Of The People

"There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact." ~Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

About

Archives

Categories

"Debate is at the heart of democracy, or
should be. But appeals to democracy are
usually designed to shut debate down,
not to deepen it." ~Paul Wells