Samstag, 28. Mai 2011

Monarchy - the best form of Government

After finding out the reasons as to why I am not a democrat, I have been asked a couple of questions regarding governance which I think may best be answered by simply outlining what I deem to be the best form of government.

In my view, the best form of government is a mixed one:
Democracy on the lowest level, aristocracy on the regional and finally: monarchy on the national level.

One may of course raise the question as to why I even include democracy after having published a treatise against such form of government.

It must be clear that I am not against any type of participation in government or a certain level of autonomy by the people. The problem with democracy is the underlying principle that law derives its legitimacy from the arbitrary will of the majority. It is that principle which I reject.

Further, the mixed form of government prevents democracy on the local level from being absolute and thus harmful:
Local democracy is limited by the supervision of an elected aristocracy.

The power of aristocrats on the other hand is limited by the Monarch who rules by divine right.

Such a monarch may not be an absolute ruler – because he too is a subject and his power thus limited.

But by whom or by what is the Monarch’s power limited and why can he not be an absolute ruler?

A Monarch may not be an absolute ruler, because regalism – or monarchical absolutism – is like democracy just another form of human absolutism which perverts the rule of law by factually rejecting the existence of immutable principles that serve as the basis for proper governance and the legitimacy of law.

After explaining why regalism is fundamentally wrong, it is time to discuss how the Monarch’s power is limited.

The first thing to consider is the fact that the Monarch rules by divine right.
The principle of rule by divine right already shows that the Monarch is not Sovereign in and of himself, but derives all his power and authority from another source:
namely from God.

The contingent nature of monarchical authority automatically puts certain limitations on it:

Monarchical authority is only legitimate when realized in accordance to Divine Law;
acts contrary to Divine Law are per principle illegitimate since they are not warranted by God.

And in Divine Law are anchored certain immutable principles upon which proper governance and legitimate law are based.

Since these principles are transcendental and immutable, the rights derived from them too cannot be altered by any man: not by any collective of persons, nor by any individual Monarch.

Therefore, rule by divine right protects all humans against arbitrary tyranny and thus guarantees the rule of law.

It must also be noted that Divine Law is not revealed explicitly through the State, but through the Church.

The preservation and definitive and infallible teaching of divinely revealed truth – regarding faith and morals – are missions delegated by divine command unto the Church and not the State.

Thus there is necessarily a relation of dependence of the Crown on the Church, due to which a strict separation of Church and State ought to be rejected.

Such dependence becomes clear when one considers that it is the Church alone that can speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals.

She is the infallible mouthpiece of natural or Divine Law and thus the guardian of the knowledge regarding those immutable principles from which the Monarch’s authority is derived.

Without this infallible Church, definitive knowledge of the aforementioned immutable principles would not be given and thus are opened the gates of relativism preparing the way for any type of human absolutism and thereby of arbitrary tyranny destroying the rule of law.

It therefore follows, that for the Monarch’s governance to be the expression of the rule of law, he himself must cooperate with and subject himself to the Church.

For the temporal order to meet its proper end, it must act in accordance to and subject itself to the spiritual.

Only if such relationship between the temporal and the spiritual order is maintained, can the rule of law and thereby true liberty be guaranteed.

For as God rules His Church as her Head preserving her from destruction, so too shall the Monarch – in analogy – govern as the temporal head of the nation.

The Monarch’s rule by divine right shows that the source and end of his authority is to be found in the spiritual sphere.
Therefore, it is the State’s duty to organize society in such a manner that would enable the populace to reach its spiritual end: namely life eternal.
This is done by supporting the Church in her mission wherever necessary and possible.

In conclusion, there are two spheres that are analogous to each other: the temporal and the spiritual.
And only in their cooperation can proper governance, that is the rule of law, be guaranteed.

*** Deus - Ecclesia ; Rex – Patria***

A treatise against Democracy

Watching a video on democracy some days ago, I stumbled across a statement made by a youtuber which really made me think.

It said: "Democracy is the unquestionable belief that the majority is ALWAYS right.”

Though the word itself – being a composite from the Greek words Demos and Kratos – actually means the “rule of the people”, the reality of democracy is the rule of the majority.

Thus, the underlying principle of democracy is that law receives its legitimacy from the will of the majority.

It is because of that principle that I am not a democrat.

I believe in the rule of law based on true and immutable principles – not in the arbitrary conventions of a certain portion of a country’s population.

In order to clarify what I mean, let me give an example.

Take for instance the constitution of a hypothetical country saying that man has an intrinsic dignity upon which certain inalienable rights are based –
for example the right to life.

It is well-known that many Western democracies have similar statements in their constitutions that are seen to guarantee these so-called inalienable rights.

One may now ask where the problem is?
After all, the existence of inalienable rights shows that all legislation must be made in accordance to these rights:
Thus we have the rule of law based on objective truth.

The problem arises when one goes beyond the façade of false immutability that constitutions put up.

In democracies, the legitimacy of any constitution ultimately rests upon human convention.
These constitutions may be modified or abolished and replaced.
Therefore, whatever claims they make regarding “rights” have to be seen in light of the underlying principle of democracy:
Namely, that it is the majority’s will which gives legitimacy to law.

That said, there is nothing objective about democratic legislation:
Law and rights are not based on objective truth transcending the arbitrary nature of mere human conventions.

What is claimed to be an inalienable right today, may be taken away by majority vote tomorrow.
Such an act would not be contrary to democracy.

Since law itself then is based on the will of the majority – and man’s will is not immutable -, then one can say that:
Democracy is the expression of the dictatorship of relativism.

Law is essentially normative: it does not merely describe the state of things, but tells us how things ought to be.

The idea that there is a way things ought to be suggests that there is a truth about the things subject to law and about their proper ends.
It is for this reason that we can claim certain acts to be unlawful.

Law – understood in the proper sense – thus is intrinsically tied to truth.
And it is the truth which ultimately grants any law its legitimacy.
If any law violates truth, then it is illegitimate and an abuse of the power of governance.

Democracy – which subjects the legitimacy of law to the will of the majority – destroys the essence of proper governance.

Instead of binding human society to what is true through the rule of law, the will of the majority is turned to the supreme and absolute principle by which human society must live.

Thus I conclude that Democracy – as any type of human absolutism – is a perversion of the rule of law – and as such ought to be rejected.