...
So is monarchy superior to democracy? St. John of Kronstadt once
observed "Hell is a democracy but heaven is a kingdom." However, we live
in a representative democracy that has afforded us freedom of religion
-- and we are grateful for that. But on the other hand, we have also
begun to see in recent years that the problem with democracy is that it
only works well for a moral people, and given fallen human nature, it
can facilitate a rapid decline in morality. The 20th century, especially
in the wake of the two world wars, saw the rise of democracy around the
world and the rapid decline in monarchy, and in the course of just
under a hundred years we have essentially seen the end of Christendom as
a result.
Read the rest here.
A good and nuanced, albeit short discussion of the topic.The problem with democracy, including in its more limited forms, is that it asserts the sovereignty of man. And that proposition, born in the so called Enlightenment, has served as the catalyst for the appalling collapse of Christian Civilization.
The 4th Century Science of St Macrina (II)
48 minutes ago
7 comments:
Monarchists know that a king (or queen) is a unifying force for the people.
Though i am sympathetic to the monarchy as a form if government as I have blood ties to two royal families, the line if reasoning that with it, Christian civilization would be flourishing and that its absence has caused wars and other sorts if evils is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
People can rally around a monarch. How can they rally around a bunch of squabbling politicians?
THe clowns who think they'd "like" a monarchy should consider the examples of the last centuries. WOuld you really LIKE to be under Nicholas II???? How about the Kaiser? Maybe a British one or three? Really? You really like Elizabeth or the musshmouth Phillip or Charles (and QUEEN Camila!) to make any decision more important than what kilt to wear at dinner?
Democratically elected officials have no better track record.
Collapse of Christian civilization? Freedom, religious toleration, and political self-governance had had bad odours back in the days when Christian nations had Christian monarchs. Those were the days when regicide was a terrible crime [and sin]. Nowadays, that kind of monarchist slop could pass muster in the super-enlightened Middle East.
Yep, democracy sucks because tyranny, even the tyranny of a naively dumbass majority, sucks. A tyranny of a minority, such as a monarchy, sucks too.
Under a monarchy there are competing institutions--the Church, the Tribe, the Nobility. The monarch has to compete for human and financial capital with an eye to his posterity. He governs as a minority under the grim realization that if he fails to command loyalty and legitimacy, he and his family are doomed. There are no such checks on the secular democratic State. So long as the majority is kept sated, it will grow and take until its tax base is destroyed or leaves.
Having said all this, all current holders of the commons and the State apparatus would have to be wiped out, and an adventurer-conqueror seize them and declare them bequeathed to his posterity, before we would ever see actual monarch again. Not impossible, but improbable.
Post a Comment