Are there good reasons to prefer democracy to the rule of the ‘enlightened monarch’?
This essay will discuss reasons to prefer democracy to the rule of the ‘enlightened monarch’, and their relevant counter-points. The topics considered will include accountability, qualifications, history and power displays. The essay will conclude that, while it isn’t the panacea of Fukuyama’s thinking, democracy is preferable, at least in this time and place.
The virtues of democracy itself have been hotly debated since Ancient Greece. The political system of Athens at the time was highly democratic for its age, and even centuries later. Plato worried of the possibility of 'mob rule’, where the uneducated had a greater voice than the learned and experienced. It is basic human, and indeed animal, nature for groups of beings to have leaders and followers. In modern societies, this had led to a complex political machine, broadly meeting the populace’s needs and desires. In a 'representative democracy’ system, as this essay is concerned with, the public is supposed to give up day-to-day power in return for a greater control: deciding on the leaders themselves.
Monarchy, however, points towards absolute power, at least in some fields, being vested in a single, unelected actor. 'Enlightened monarchy’ I take as specifically regarding monarchs who embraced the principles of the Enlightenment, even if for non-philosophic reasons. These principles include rationality, tolerance of religion and private property rights. Of course, even monarchs considered 'enlightened’ have varied widely in their application of such ideas.
Perhaps the clearest argument for democracy as a concept is the issue of accountability. In systems of representative democracy, this generally takes the form of voting out undesirable leaders; a function inherently missing from monarchy. No matter how successful a leader becomes, it is human nature for them to have failings. These failings may be voiced under a monarchy, but punishment of such is difficult. Furthermore, democracy provides a motive for accountability; that of creating political capital for 'your side’. In a royal system, no such motive exists, as there isn’t an alternative (revolution notwithstanding) to turn to.
However, even in the seemingly clear arena of accountability, problems emerge. To what degree is democracy actually accountable? Pareto, among others, argued that all political systems have a degree of elitism, and so elections are simply a minor realignment of an otherwise static 'body politik’. “Political Parties” (1911) by Michels outlined the famous “iron law of oligarchy”, stating as essentially inevitable that organisations will become oligarchic over time. Technical and organisational issues, along with human nature, are consulted to argue the point. Therefore, when modern democracies are examined in depth, it may be discovered that they are in fact essentially oligarchic already. For example, in the UK the real 'power’ can be argued to rest with various bodies who create policy, such as the EU and special advisers, and implement it, I.e. The Civil Service; few of whom are elected. In short, if much praised democratic systems are not themselves accountable, perhaps it is moot point regarding monarchy. Furthermore, if Michels is right, and undemocratic control is inevitable, there is at least transparency is having it openly with a supreme ruler, than hidden behind the façade of 'democracy’.
In his epic 'Leviathan’, Thomas Hobbes outlined five major objections to democracy. He accepted that people will inherently work to their own “private goode”, and so public good should be as closely linked to private as possible, I.e the personal prestige of monarchy. However, it seems that democracy, in allowing the populace to choose the most successful leaders, offers the better chance of encouraging “goode” of a public or private nature.
Hobbes’ second issue concerns the ability of a monarch to “receiveth counsell” of “men versed” in the relevant matters. In other words, a king can concentrate on experts; in a more meritocratic method than currently utilised with special advisers and trade lobby groups. This took on particular importance during the 18th century, as monarchs turned to philosophers and men of learning, such as Voltaire, to assist with policy. While Plato’s idea of “philosopher kings” wasn’t realised, the aim of concentrating on the opinions of experts in their fields seems basically sound.
However, it provides a narrow viewpoint on the outcome people 'should’ want, as opposed to their desires. To withhold the right to make mistakes of judgement seems to severely undervalue any sense of self-determinism, a much valued concept in our modern age. Furthermore, the unbiased experts Hobbes envisaged can be hard to find. Outside parts of academia, which often lacks practical experience, the experts in a field will likely work within it. Can any human be expected to be impartial about the sector on which their livelihood depends? It seems unlikely.
The third and fourth disputes outlined in the 'Leviathan’ regard the “resolutions of a Monarch” not being inconsistent, or open to self-criticism. The waste of the 18th and 21st Amendments of the US Constitution, respectively banning and unbanning the sale of alcohol, would seem more absurd with a single sovereign making decisions. However, while politically damaging, is changing an opinion inherently negative? Surely most values are relative to the time and place of their formation, so their long-term constancy could be harmfully inflexible. In addition, criticism and evolution of ideas are necessary for progress, a function hampered by monarchy, which generally prefers to project awe and humility among its subjects. Assuming that the current system is perfect, and therefore changing previous legislation is unnecessary, seems an extreme understanding of conservatism.
Finally, Hobbes’ mentions the chances of a monarch being bribed by a “favourite”, assuming it to be statistically lower than in democracy, with more members open to corruption. The thinking is that, while a king may advance his family, that is a small price to pay compared to the 'pork’ of a modern democracy. This idea does seem rather flawed. For example, while members of a democratic body are more numerous, each has a motive to 'out’ the corruption of others, while none of a monarch’s 'favourites’ will want to reveal their lucrative system. Also, representative democracy, in dividing power among hundreds of members, leaves less scope for the huge, country-damaging corruption possible under a supreme leader, seen in Indonesia’s Suharto and Zaire’s Mobutu Sese Seko.
Looking at history, as early as 1531 Machiavelli pointed out that, concerning monarchs, “of good and wise ones there have been few”. Among the 18th century royals considered good examples of “enlightened” rulers, the record is mixed. In corresponding with Voltaire, one of the greatest thinkers of the French Enlightenment, Frederick II of Prussia (1712 - 1786) perhaps best personified the concept of the 'enlightened monarch’. Indeed, his book “Anti-Machiavel” attacked Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, asserting that the Italian ignored the useful principles of rationality, benevolence and morality. Frederick, and Peter I of Russia (1672-1725), suppressed any rebellions against them, among various faults. However, they used their knowledge of Western Europe to greatly reform their countries; with everything from the structure of the Church to dress codes modified. Some reforms, such as bringing the poor under tax regimes for the first time, were commonly unpopular, and other changes were resented by the existing political elite. Therefore, it seems unlikely that they would have taken place, at least so quickly, under a democratic system.
While Peter and Frederick (and similarly Catherine II and Joseph II) exemplify monarchs striving hard to improve their countries, they are a rare breed in history. Arguably, their performance proves more about the power of Enlightenment thinkers, than a particular strength of monarchy itself. A better argument for the royalty of the period, and eternally, may be the stability they provide. In democracies, a leader is lucky to be around for ten years, whereas many monarchs (notwithstanding premature deaths) reign for decades. Such dependability can provide the structural basis for long-term investments and reforms to occur, in the relative probability that the patron will not soon be replaced.
As Helena Kennedy QC points out, the British monarch separates “pomp from power” to “safeguard against political megalomania”. In context, the quote is admiring the monarchy, but only a constitutionally limited one, where the 'real’ power lies elsewhere such as in a democracy. Keeping a head of state, whether it be a president, as in Ireland, or monarch, does provide an actor to concentrate on ancient ceremonies and diplomatically useful visits. This allows the leader of government to concentrate more on domestic issues. America ignores this principle, arguably to the cost of a President who can be 'broken’ by foreign affairs, and Britain’s recent Prime Ministers have been moving towards a Presidential international appearance. This shows that, while separating ceremony from government is quite probably a positive, it relies on the suppressing of a human tendency to appreciate both.
In conclusion, I believe there are strong reasons, such as accountability and versatility, to prefer democracy to even an 'enlightened’ monarch. In theory the latter would likely be preferable, but the deficiencies of human nature make the former the better option.