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***


  1. So, back to middle ages? Where the peasant was oppressed (because aristocracy are people), king killed on a whim (you can't stop him), witches were burned (Church is infallible, but not on that scale), church is corrupt (they are deeply into the worldly) etc. How can you think this is better? Because it's better in theory? I think it's detached from reality.

  2. I'll ignore the historical errors in your claims and just proceed to state a historical fact: republics have caused the death of far more people than monarchies in the past.

    And the post here is not for regalism, but for a mixed form of government which is a far-stretch from the examples of tyranny that you use.