The questions that were posed to the candidates are below.
The questions are largely the same as the last survey except
for the addition of question 5.

Below are links to each candidate's reply and a short look at
any previous comments they may have made in regards to the
monarchy. Candidates who failed to qualify or withdrew are
included for historical reference.

Qualified to appear on the ballot
Pierre Poilievre
Leslyn Lewis
Jean Charest
Roman Baber
Patrick Brown
Scott Aitchison

No longer in the race
Leona Alleslev

​Here I have ranked the candidates support for, or opposition
to, the monarchy. Keep in mind this is only my assessment
and your mileage may vary. Also, note that changes may occur
as the campaign goes on.

The crown score is out of five crowns with each candidate
receiving one crown for stating support for the monarchy
in their reply, one crown for having defended the monarchy
in Parliament, two crowns for outlining how they would
improve the monarchy's role in the future, and one crown for
having spoken in support of the monarchy outside of 
Parliament. 

The cap score is likewise out of five caps with one cap given to
a candidate for being opposed to the monarchy in their reply,
one cap for desiring a referendum on the monarchy, one cap
for opposing the monarchy in Parliament and two caps for
making the establishment of a Canadian republic a part of
their policy platform.

​I would like to thank all of the candidates for getting back to
me. While I might disagree at times with the replies I receive
it is at least good to know that politicians still take the time
to reply to ordinary Canadians.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Just yesterday I received a reply from 
Jean Charest to my survey of the tory 
leadership candidates regarding their 
views on the monarchy. Before getting 
into the survey answers I will briefly go 
over any statements Jean Charest has 
made in Parliament or in the media. In 
this case very briefly as I could not find 
much. The only instance appears to be
a comment made during a previous
royal homecoming on how any protests
would not effect Quebec's image on the
​world stage.

Jean Charest's replies to the survey are below:

1. What are your views on the monarchy? 

"My position is consistent with the Party in maintaining our
ties with the Monarchy and retaining the Queen as a Head of
State. Constitutional questions involving the Monarchy are
not high priorities for Canadians with our current state of
the federation divided over issues like equalization and
resources."

2. As prime minister would you make use of the
Advisory Committee on Vice-Regal Appointments
that was active between 2010 and 2015? 

"Yes."

3. In 2019 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? 

"Yes."

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? 

"I would leave such a determination, as I would in any
individual department to the appropriate Minister. Should
each elect to post a portrait within their department such
issues would not pre-occupy me as Prime Minister nor
should they become national news."

5. The current government has not committed to
supporting the creation of a Platinum Jubilee Medal
to mark Her Majesty's 70th year on the throne. What
are your views on this? 

"I believe Canada’s position should be consistent with the
Commonwealth in having one available. I received the
Golden Jubilee medal in 2002."

Jean Charest's positions would help fix damage done to the
institution over the last number of years but I am slightly
concerned over question #1. Being asked about what your
views on a topic and replying with party policy is a deflection.
Question #4 concerns me less as leaving ministers to handle
their own departments is a fair position to take.

Overall, I get the sense that Mr. Charest has an intellectual
appreciation for the monarchy but not a deep-seated love for
the institution.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Prince Charles has been sometimes 
criticised for the way he expresses his views 
on matters of personal interest to him such 
as environmental affairs. However, a 
monarch being involved in political affairs 
is hardly something that would doom a 
constitutional monarchy. Charles’s image is 
really bound-up with the drama of his two 
marriages rather than his personality. 

The politician from across the Commonwealth who has really
trash talked Charles the most, is perhaps Maxime Bernier, at
least in recent times. Bernier in his days as a cabinet minister
never revealed any republican sentiment but as the
momentum of his right-wing populist movement has grown,
he has become more vocal over the issue. At this point,
Maxime is unlikely to return to Ottawa anyway even if the
PPC vote does increase by a large margin, but, this still could
put pressure on the Tories.

The monarchy in Canada has actually proven to be a pretty
resilient thing however controversial it may be. This might be
attributed to the Monarchist League of Canada having been
able to stay focused on presenting the argument for monarchy
in a non-partisan way and working to maintain a degree of
influence, to the extent of perhaps having the chairman sit
next to the leader of the opposition at a state dinner, or having
the deputy prime minister attend one of their events.

But the biggest threat to the monarchy in Canada is the
perception of Prince Charles being political. However, the
monarchy’s European counterparts show that this does not
need to be so. The other monarchies in Europe appear to
generally be suffering less controversy than that of the House
of Windsor despite being perceived as being more political. It
is also important to remember that whilst the financing of the
monarchy in the UK is part of the debate, Canada does not
send a single penny to Buckingham Palace. It would be
difficult for any politician like Bernier to use “taxpayers
money” as ammunition against it.

It feels pretty unrealistic that there will be any real appetite to
skip Charles, even if we had the option. It is important to
remember that constitutional monarchy can be refereed by
the public fairly easily. The royal houses have proved to be
highly sensitive to public opinion. In the UK this was
famously the case with Edward VIII’s controversial choice of
wife but more recently in Spain when their king was
humiliated into abdication by his own scandals. Spain appears
to be the only other European monarchy to be suffering the
same level of crisis in public image as the UK has. Despite
what tabloids like to shake up in the English speaking world,
such a “royal crisis” appears to be bigger in Spain than it is in
the UK, to the extent that quite a few mainstream Spanish
politicians have actually advocated a republic in contrast to
the very small number of British republicans in Westminster
and even smaller number of them who actually have tried to
campaign for a republic. Charles doesn’t face the same
pressure as Juan Carlos did.

People have at times raised an eyebrow over Prince Charles
(and his sons) acting ‘woke’. But Dutch royalty has been able
to work pretty well with ‘wokeness’, advocating LGBT,
immigration, environmental affairs, and other such things
related to social justice.  This does frustrate some
conservatives but not to the extent of fanning republican
sentiment. The widespread support for the royalty continues
to be preserved.

With the more recent generation of royals, marrying
commoners has become increasingly natural. The Nordic
royals have been doing this for some time now but even in the
very conservative Japan it’s now been accepted. Charles’ wife
Camilla has not used the title “Princess of Wales” but this
reflects the sensitivity related to Diana. There shouldn’t be
any similar reason why Camila won’t be Queen consort.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s behaviour is hardly doing
the monarchy any favours but their antics do not appear to be
damaging Charles specifically.

Many heirs to the thrones have faced skepticism during their
early royal careers both before and after ascending to the
throne. But the best news for Prince Charles is that his public
image has improved no doubt as a result of his own efforts to
downplay his more controversial interests . People are already
forgetting about the bizarre portrayals of him of the past and
are starting to view him as a benign figurehead. A few in the
UK have proposed becoming a copycat Republic of Ireland
but Charles alone does more public engagements than the
Irish President despite Charles not being the Head of State.
He is just that committed.

With Prince Charles filling in for the Queen more than ever
due to concerns over her health, for example stepping in for
the Queen at the recent state opening of Parliament, some
people have felt the need to stir up debate over his position
but, it seems this has been received very favourably by the
British public. The British public likes what they are seeing
and respect for Charles is growing at the right time.

Loyally Yours,
Lord Ludichris

Another Conservative Party leadership 
candidate has replied to my survey. This 
time it is Scott Aitchison who is the MP for 
Parry Sound-Muskoka. As a refresher these
are the questions that were sent out:

1. What are your views on the monarchy?
2. As prime minister would you make use
of the Advisory Committee on Vice-Regal
Appointments that was active between
2010 and 2015?
3. In 2019 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?
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?
​5. The current government has not committed to supporting
the creation of a Platinum Jubilee Medal to mark Her
Majesty's 70th year on the throne. What are your views on
this?

​Mr. Aitchison's reply is as follows:

As always I checked Hansard to see if the candidate has talked
about the monarchy at any point. Mr. Aitchison has not. In
fairness he was first elected in 2019 and the last few years 
​have not been normal as far as debates in parliament go.

Next I checked to see if Mr. Aitchison has comments on the
monarchy in public. As it turns out he spoke warmly about
Prince Philip's career shortly after his passing.

Scott Aitchison is a solid monarchist candidate.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Once again there is a federal Conservative 
leadership race underway. As has become 
my practice I have sent surveys out to all of
the leadership candidates to get their views
on Canada's monarchy. The first candidate 
to get back to me is Leona Alleslev. Mrs. 
Alleslev is the former MP for Aurora-Oak 
Ridges-Richmond Hill, a position she held 
from 2015-2021. This is her first candidacy
​in a leadership race.

The questions have been somewhat expanded this year due to
​a variety of reasons.

What are your views on the monarchy?

"As someone who holds a “Queen’s commission” to serve as
an air force officer - I take my oath to Queen and country
very seriously. As I am sure you know - our Queen is our
head of state - and commander in chief of our military -
which is separate from our head of government - the Prime
Minister. I think it is critically important that those two roles
remain separate and that Canadians continue to understand
why they are. I had a portrait of the Queen in both my
constituency office and my hill office the entire time I was an
MP. I was also awarded the Duke of Edinburgh Gold Award
by Prince Edward in 1988 and will sing the words to God
Save the Queen as well as O Canada."

As prime minister would you make use of the
Advisory Committee on Vice-Regal Appointments
that was active between 2010 and 2015?

"I don’t know enough about the advisory committee of vice
regal appointments to answer your question - but Vice regal
appointments are critically important and should have the
advice and wisdom of representatives of the provinces and
territories and other groups prior to appointments being
made."

In 2019 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?

"Yes, Canadians should be able to obtain a portrait of the
Queen if they want one - I can tell you that it was difficult for
me - as a Member of Parliament - to get portraits of the
Queen for my parliamentary offices and I was furious. I
would change that."

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?

"Every government dept. lobby should have a portrait of the
Queen. Wherever there is a picture of the PM (and a Minister
and a public servant Deputy Minister) there should also be a
picture of the Queen."

The current government has not committed to
supporting the creation of a Platinum Jubilee Medal
to mark Her Majesty's 70th year on the throne. What
are your views on this?

"I don’t know enough about the medal history and tradition
so I would need to know more before answering your
specific question - but - in principle I am a very strong
believer in history and decorum (having attended Royal
Military College and memorized the names of the first 18
cadets and carried a ceremonial sword) so I strongly believe
that the appropriate and historic commemorative action
should be taken to mark the 70th year of her reign."

A quick overview of her profile on openparliament.ca
shows frequent mention of the monarchy in passing (most
often in relation to her military career).

Overall, Leona Alleslev is a solid monarchist candidate in my
estimation.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

On February 17th the Monarchist League of Canada finally 
received confirmation by the government that no medal 
would be produced to mark Her Majesty's Platinum Jubilee. 
Now, given the number of people who have went above and 
beyond during the pandemic (and ought to be honoured in 
some way) this is not a great decision. But as the article title 
might suggest this isn't the first time Justin Trudeau has 
failed to take his role as prime minister of Her Majesty's 
​Government seriously.

The Queen's portrait is removed from the lobby of the Foreign
Affairs building. Back then I was willing to give the newly
elected Liberal government the benefit of the doubt.

During a royal tour by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge
the government approved a new natural gas terminal. This
was done while the royals were visiting the very people the
terminal would effect. The optics were not great and a more
cynical person might suggest the prime minister was trying to
hide behind the royal couple.

Justin Trudeau opted to ignore the vetting committee for vice-
regal appointments when recommending the appointment of
Julie Payette to the position of governor general. Now, the act
of a prime minister keeping their own counsel regarding
appointments is not new. However, they do have a serious
responsibility to make sure the candidate is properly vetted.
Reporters quickly dug up some pretty easily found reports
that should have raised red flags. As governor general
Julie Payette would end up being the worst holder of the 
​office in at least my lifetime, if not longer.

The government opted to end a successful program that
supplied free portraits of the Queen to any Canadian who
requested one. A similar program for the Charter was not
​affected.

How are these events to be interpreted? There are simply too
many slip-ups on a single issue for it to be random chance. 
This leaves open a couple possibilities:

1. Justin Trudeau's government is incompetent. Justin
Trudeau has gotten into a lot of trouble over its time in office.
We are not talking about Machiavellian dirty tricks but rather
a string of unforced errors, back-peddling, and seemingly a
lack of clear leadership. Up until this year I would have
placed myself in this column.

2. Justin Trudeau's government is actively working to
undermine the monarchy. The last couple of acts by this
government that I listed don't fall into the category of a
government bumbling. To end the portrait program and not
the Charter program is intentional and the Jubilee Medal
decision even more so. Despite what Justin Trudeau has
said in the past I can't see him as a friend of the monarchy any
longer.

If it really is the second option we may be seeing the return
of republicanism by stealth. No grand declaration of war
against our institutions but instead a slow chipping away at
the foundation of Canadian governance.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

First, lets establish who exactly the Québécois people are that
we will be talking about. It would seem obvious to state that
they are from France and you'd be right. But immigration to
the colony of New France was not even across the whole
nation. Instead, regions in the north and north-west supplied
​most of the early immigrants to the colony. 

This influx of people who
spoke Norman French has
resulted in Québécois
French being very different
​to Parisian French. This
difference was partially
caused by the settlement 
and assimilation of Viking
settlers (Northmen) into the
local French population of
Normandy. This began in
911. Rollo, leader of these
Viking settlers, would create
a long-lived dynasty. A dynasty that would, in 1066, gain a
foothold across the English Channel.

The Battle of Hastings would mark a turning point for the
descendants of Rollo. They added a large island kingdom to
their ducal possessions on the mainland. However, the tense
situation that resulted would eventually see Normandy lost to
the King of France in 1202. The King of France did not trust
the local Norman population and made the former duchy a
part of his demesne with his own French governors in charge.
This situation was not always accepted by the proud Norman
population and at times they were able to get concessions
from their new overlord. Still, the desire to have their duke
back was to persist as late as the 1400s: 

In England Rollo's descendants would hold the throne right
up to the present day. For many years Norman administrators
and Norman French would predominate in the halls of power
​before they too slowly assimilated into the local Anglo-Saxon
population. Just as with the Vikings in Normandy this would
greatly effect the local language but to a much greater extant. 

The Conquest of New France is interesting as it marked the
end of high stakes Anglo-French rivalry on the continent. The
victors likewise treated the colony with a great deal of care
and enshrined certain religious, legal, and political rights in
the Quebec Act of 1774.

Due to the above history it is interesting to consider whether
playing up this connection at the time would have gone a long
way towards smoothing the soon-to-be troubled relationship
between the Québécois and the ​English. But it is unclear if the
king or his governors ​were even aware of such a connection.

Had William the Conquer been content to stay just William,
Duke of Normandy, and had Québécois decided to stay put
(which if they had their own native dynasty they might have),
and had a small little thing called the French Revolution not
happened Rollo would mean more to people than the name of
a chocolate treat. But, I'm pushing things by pushing for 
three separate changes to the timeline. What happened is, I
think, more poetic. 

In Canada, up to the present day, the descendants of the Rollo
reigns over the descendants of the men and women he led to
settle in France. So I would argue that the Conquest of New
France marked the reuniting of a ruler and his people. And
that is what the symbolism of the ​Canadian Monarchy
should be for the Québécois ​in my view.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

"I join with all Canadians on this first 
National Day for Truth and 
Reconciliation to reflect on the painful 
history that Indigenous peoples endured 
in residential schools in Canada, and on 
the work that remains to heal and to 
continue to build an inclusive society" 

~Her Majesty the Queen

"As we mark the first National Day for
Truth and Reconciliation, I think back to
how my childhood shaped me. How so
many in our community, and thousands
more Indigenous children across Canada,
were ripped away from their homes,
separated from their families and sent to
residential schools, where they were not
allowed to speak their languages or
honour their cultures, and were punished if they did.

As the child of a white father and an Inuk mother, I was not
allowed to attend. I stayed behind, home-schooled, and
visited families where there was a palpable void. I was a
stand-in, a well-loved substitute, for mothers and fathers
who desperately missed their children.

We all felt it. The sorrow of missing a part of our
community.

Since the launch of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
of Canada and the publication of Calls to Action—and more
recently, with the discoveries of unmarked graves of
residential school children—Canada’s real history has been
laid bare. The legacy of colonization has had devastating
repercussions for Indigenous peoples, including the loss of
language, culture and heritage. This pain has been felt from
generation to generation, and it continues today.

These are uncomfortable truths, and often hard to accept.
But the truth also unites us as a nation, brings us together to
dispel anger and despair, and embrace justice, harmony and
trust instead.

Reconciliation is a way of life, continuous, with no end date.
It is learning from our lived experiences and understanding
one another. It is creating the necessary space for us to heal.
It is planting seeds of hope and respect so that our garden
blooms for our children.

As we strive to acknowledge the horrors of the past, the
suffering inflicted on Indigenous peoples, let us all stand
side-by-side with grace and humility, and work together to
build a better future for all."
​
~Her Excellency Mary Simon

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

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

The world was shocked earlier this 
month when the Taliban effortlessly 
retook control of Afghanistan. Ever 
since a great deal of ink has been 
spilled trying to explain why. Some 
hold this to be a direct result of the 
manner in which the USA withdrew from the country. Some 
argue it is due to longstanding issues with political corruption 
in the halls of power which sapped the country's strength. 
​Still others argue this result was inevitable as the Taliban 
were freedom fighters seeking to overthrow a puppet regime. 

All of these explanations have a bit of truth to them but I 
consider them to be symptoms of a larger problem. A problem
stemming from the events of one day when Afghanistan had
the potential to avoid its current fate; June 10th, 2002.

On that day the Loya Jirga met to decide how the new Afghan
government would be organized. There were to be 1450
delegates to the meeting from all walks of life. In the end
2000 delegates were given permission to participate. This
included 50 added at the request of various warlords. But a
funny thing happened. A petition started circulating that
called for Zahir Shah, former King of Afghanistan, to retake
his throne, even if only in a ceremonial role. It had 800
signatures when the USA and UN got wind of it. This would
have been a majority of the original number of delegates and
it is likely it would have reached a majority of the enlarged
delegation. In a move that was largely seen as an attempt to
buy time the meeting of the Loya Jirga was pushed back by
one day. 

No one knows what went on during that time but when the
day came Zahir Shah announced he was not a candidate for
any position in the government. The former king had been
preparing for a return for some time so it is odd that he
would step aside so easily. Odd and unfortunate.

What Western powers had not understood about Afghanistan
was that there was very little sense of national identity on
which to draw. Indeed, one of the pressing issues for the
monarchy during its time had been instilling a common
identity. They were never completely successful and when the
monarchy fell only two institutions held the loyalty of the
Afghan people; the monarchy and Islam. Having banished
one the communists made an enemy of the other. And when
the communists were sent running Afghanistan was left a
patchwork of ethnic factions and a new religious faction; the
Taliban. The Americans kicked out the Taliban and sought to
build an Afghan government. But the rules persisted from
before and there were still only two institutions that held the
people's common loyalty; the monarchy and Islam. And if the
Kingdom of Afghanistan had barely managed to create the
start of a national identity then the chances of the Americans
succeeding were slim.

So it is no accident the government gave Zahir Shah a place of
honour in the country but in failing to restore the monarchy
they made themselves vulnerable. The Taliban, on the run but
not destroyed denounced the republic as a puppet regime. 
The Afghan government, lacking a strong national identity nor a figure of respect to lead them, took to spreading the
country's wealth among their own supporters.

June 10th, 2002 was an opportunity for the new government
to put at its head a man whom all Afghans respected. It was a
chance to set Afghanistan on the right footing for the future.
And the failure to see this doomed America to a humiliating
defeat and Afghanistan to the tender care of monsters.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour