The following is a survey of the party 
candidates running in the riding of 
Fundy Royal on the topic of the 
monarchy. It is mostly for my own 
use as a voter but the questions may 
be of use to other monarchists who
want to ask their own candidates 
​what their views are. 

Rob Moore, Conservative Party (Incumbent, 5th run)

Whitney Dykeman, Liberal Party (1st run)

Tim Thompson, Green Party (2nd run)

Josh Floyd, New Democratic Party (1st run)

Wayne Wheeler, People's Party (1st run)

1. What are your views on the monarchy?

Moore: I think it’s important for Canadians to understand
and be proud of our history within the Commonwealth and
the role of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. 

Dykeman: Canada and the United Kingdom share a long-
standing and valuable history, which we respect and
acknowledge. As a constitutional monarchy with a Parliament
comprised of the Sovereign, the Senate, and the House of
Commons, Canada’s form of government is among the most
stable and enduring in the world. We were proud that, on the
Prime Minister’s recommendation, Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth II has approved the appointment of Mary Simon as
our Governor General.

Thompson: I believe that a constitutional monarch plays an
important role in Canada and support maintaining our place
as a commonwealth nation with the Queen being the Head of
State. I also recognize the challenges surrounded by
colonialism and believe we need to follow through with the
Calls of Action for Truth and Reconciliation.

Floyd: [The] Monarchy generally is less relevant to
Canadians today, but any kind of constitutional change isn’t a
priority for us or for Canadians during the pandemic.

Wheeler: My view on the monarchy is this - it’s part of our
history and therefore should be taught in schools; but I think
we should be our own country.

2. As MP would you push to make the Advisory
Committee on Vice-Regal Appointments that was
active between 2010 and 2015 a permanent part of
the process for choosing governor generals and
lieutenant governors?

Moore: Conservatives created the Vice-Regal Appointments
Committee as a non-partisan appointment process to
nominate Canada’s Governor General - and it works. We’ve
seen, and will pay for, the consequence of the Liberals
snubbing this proven process.

Thompson: Choosing a GG, LG and/or territorial
commissioner is a very important process.  I support the
Advisory Committee but would ensure to have First Nations /
Indigenous representation on the committee, which has not
been done before. 

Floyd: We would like to see a more transparent and multi-
partisan approach to selecting the Governor General.

Wheeler: As for the Advisory Committee, it could still be
useful to find qualified people for the position  but I think
they should be voted on by Canadians other then appointed.

3. During the previous parliament the government
cancelled a program that mailed physical copies of
the Queen's portrait to any Canadian who asked free
of charge. Would you restore this program?

Moore: When the Liberals ended the service of sending
portraits of The Queen to Canadians, they said that a digital
copy would be universally accessible. That would only be true
if all Canadians have access to a computer and reliable
internet - they should know better than anyone that this isn’t
the case. Government agencies send hard copy
correspondence to Canadians regularly. I would be interested
to know why this particular service was ended, and how it
could be salvaged under a Conservative government.

Thompson: Canadians and NGOs that wish to have a copy
of the Queen's official portrait should be able to visit their
constituency office and a copy be provided. In an effort to
reduce the amount of copies printed that are not sent out and
to promote engagement with MPs I think offering this service
locally across Canada would benefit all Canadians.

Floyd: It is not currently a focus of the NDP to restore the
portrait program.

Wheeler: The program to supply portraits not a problem
with that whatsoever...it’s part of our history.

4. The government also removed the Queen's portrait
from the lobby of the Foreign Affairs Office and
replaced it with paintings by Alfred Pallen. Would
you find a way to have both paintings and portrait
share the ample wall space of the Foreign Affairs
Office lobby?

Moore: When the Liberal’s removed The Queen’s portrait
from the lobby of Foreign Affairs shortly after their election in
2015, they signaled to Canadians that it was okay to ignore
that history. The Conservative Party of Canada takes a very
different approach to acknowledging and respecting our ties
to the monarchy.

Thompson: With the Queen being the constitutional 
monarch in Canada the official portrait should be displayed
by Canadian Departments. With this I would also wish to have
Indigenous Art displayed to recognize Canada's diversity. 

Wheeler: ...the portrait should be on the walls of parliament!

5. There are currently no plans for a Platinum
Jubilee Medal to mark Her Majesty's reign in 2022.
Given the large number of health workers (among
others) deserving of special recognition will you
work towards making sure a medal is issued?
(Note: This question was added after replies from the NDP,
Liberals, Conservatives, and People's Party had already been
received. I will contact the other parties again and add their
responses if given.) 

Thompson: As a veteran that has served Canada and the
Monarch for over 14 years I believe it is important to mark
this special occasion. Covid_19 has demonstrated that
essential workers are the true heroes in Canada. Utilizing the
Queens Platinum Jubilee with the creation of a medal would
be a very respectful way of saying Thank you to those front
line workers.   I would work towards marking this milestone
with a medal.

Thank you to all the candidates who took the time to
get back to me and good luck with your campaigns.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Recently I learned that an organization 
called Democracy Watch was going to 
sue the New Brunswick government over 
its decision to call an early election back in 
September. Now, suing anyone is risky but 
more so when that organization has 
limitless funds to mount a defence. So if 
nothing else I commend their bravery. 
Sadly, the bravery has a truckload of foolishness mixed in.

So what is the issue at hand? It comes down to reading New
Brunswick's fixed-date election law (which sets the date the
next election will fall on), and the constitution, the way you
want it to read rather than how it is actually written. James
Bowden over at Parliamentum has already made several
excellent posts about the structural problems of Canada's
fixed-date election laws so I will not get into them in depth
here.

The Democracy Watch press release announcing this legal
action is an interesting read mostly because it aims to have
the courts rule on two things they don't rule on: conventions
and politics. They argue that because the last three elections
have occurred on the fixed-date that a convention has been
established. I won't even dispute this point; a convention of
having elections on a set date may well have been established
but this still doesn't make conventions something
courts can rule on. The second aspect of their argument is
that calling an early election was self-interested and contrary
to previous political positions. Now, courts don't rule on
conventions and they definitely don't rule on political
positions. There is an amusing irony in that if Democracy
Watch gets its way the unelected courts will become referees
of government policy. Why is this an ​irony? Because they also
want the current referees of government policy (the monarch
and their representatives) to be elected.

Although, either because of the many constitutional hurdles
involved or a secret preference for oligarchy, they don't
actually call for elected governor generals:

I'm sure Democracy Watch would like to think this is a more democratic process but it is instead a very oligarchic one. At
every step the smallest elite has authority. Search committee?
Selected by the party leaders. Convention to select the new
​governor general? Party leaders from across Canada. I also
have doubts about their conclusion that the resulting pick
​would be non-partisan. Election is not a system that tends to
select for non-partisanship. Those leaders doing the voting
have every interest to have someone sympathetic to their
​interests get the nod. Finally, it diffuses responsibility for the
appointment. At present, the prime minister has a vested
interest in making sure their pick isn't an embarrassment.
By spreading the blame for any poor choices of governor
general around a wider group the prime minister loses any
sense of personal responsibility in making sure the office of
​the governor general is functioning properly.

The idea of having a select group choose candidates to
recommend is not a bad idea in and of itself. I have
mentioned the Advisory Committee on Vice-Regal
Appointments before and I feel it was an improvement.

So Democracy Watch does have some good ideas, such as
increasing the power of auditors general, but the good ideas
are buried under layers of poorly-thought-out initiatives, of
which messing with the Crown is only one. It can do better.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

"A king is a king, not because he is rich
and powerful, not because he is a
successful politician, not because he
belongs to a particular creed or to a
national group. He is King because he is
born. And in choosing to leave the
selection of their head of state to this
most common denominator in the
world -the accident of birth- Canadians
implicitly proclaim their faith in human
equality; their hope for the triumph of nature over political
manoeuvre, over social and financial interest; for the victory
of the human person." 

~Jacques Monet, historian and author

"I can safely say that on most policy
issues, there are probably no two people
in the House who agree less than Peter
and I. However, we found a sense of
camaraderie... There are two things on
which we do share agreement. One of
those is the importance of Canadian
history. I thank Peter for his constant
reminders of the importance of
Canadian history in this House. The
second, strangely enough, is the
monarchy. Peter and I share being
monarchists. I believe the constitutional
monarchy is one of the foundations of our democracy,
because when one is from my community, one knows it is
hard to upstage a queen."
​
~Randall Garrison, politician and human rights activist

"The Globe and Mail stated last July
that “The monarchy is the bedrock of
Canada's constitutional order.” I firmly
agree, and I have always believed that.
I am proud to be a strong monarchist,
holding firm to the belief that historical
continuity is the best anchor for bold
and progressive governance. I would
like to express my sincere hope that Her
Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh will
continue to be beacons of love and
devotion for years to come."

~Alexandra Mendès, politician

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

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:

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.

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

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

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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