The case for monarchy

In modern times, democracy is the dominant form of government worldwide, but I argue that monarchy remains a superior system due to:

• • its ability to provide strong, stable leadership
  • independence from short-term electoral politics
  • the ability to unite people and provide a focal point for national identity

As Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues in his book Democracy: The God That Failed, if given the choice between monarchy and democracy, the former should be chosen. A monarchy is effectively private governance over private property while a democracy is a public governance over public property.

Why do successful companies resemble monarchies, in that they don’t let staff vote every four years for a new CEO? Because it doesn’t work.

Democracies don’t have long-term security, but monarchies do. When elections change the government, new policies favour short-term political gains and ways to please the voters. For example, Biden changed Trump’s policies, who changed Obama’s policies, who changed Bush’s policies, all in a space of a generation.

A king, on the other hand, can think about policies that may not pay off for decades because he looks at many generations at once. Long-term priorities, like spending money on infrastructure or schooling, are less likely to change.

A monarchy is more stable, therefore.

Monarchies generally provide more steady, long-term leadership that democracies lack by default.

Think of it like this: A (hereditary) monarch ensures leadership continuity beyond the lifespan of a single politician. While elected leaders may serve only a few years before leaving office, a monarch can provide decades of experienced leadership, guidance and symbolic representation of national identity and values. A ‘democratically’ elected president is merely renting a nice office for four or five years, spending taxpayer money to try stay longer in the nice office.

Monarchs are not tied to special interests like politicians in democratic systems.

Politicians need backing from various groups such as donors, unions, corporations, and lobbyists to win elections. Additionally, outside forces have historically successfully subverted democracies due to their unstable governing frameworks.

Monarchs play an apolitical role, serving as a symbol of national history and continuity that goes beyond political divisions. They symbolise the whole country, fostering collaboration among competitors.

Therefore, voting isn’t needed. People can get on with their lives. If they dislike the king, they can leave and live elsewhere. (Which is why it’s in the king’s best interests to be a good ruler.)

Having kings around makes people feel connected to their shared history, which is pretty much impossible for leaders in divided democratic systems. As I said earlier, companies don’t vote for a new CEO every five years, so why should countries vote for a new government every five years?

The ideal city-state size, according to Plato, is one where everyone knows one another and can participate in governing.

Under monarchy, the distinction between rulers and ruled is clear. I know, for instance, that I will never become king, and because the king’s goal is to transmit his kingdom to his heirs, it is in his interest to leave it to them in the best possible condition.

—Hans-Hermann Hoppe