La Monarquía

On July 4^th, 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed. This heartfelt letter to King George III explained the Colonies were finally separating from British rule, and they would fight for their independence if need be. The colonists would no longer be under a monarchy; instead they would establish a democratic-republic. But are monarchies really so bad? Is there any way to have a good one? 

Jean-Jacques Rousseau attempts to answer this question in a section dedicated solely to monarchy in his book On the Social Contract, a work that attempts to deduce what is the best form of government.

Rousseau begins by saying in contrast with other forms of government such as a democracy or a republic, where a “collective being stands for an individual,” a monarchy has one person standing for a collective being (48). Rousseau writes that “the moral unity which constitutes the prince is at the same time a physical unity, all the qualities, which in the other case are only with difficulty brought together by the law, are found naturally united” (48). This means that the moral will and the physical will of the prince are the same, while in other governments this might not be so. The will of the people, the will of the prince, the public force of the State, and the particular force of the government all answer to a single motive power. Because the will answers to a single motive power, everything moves toward the same end; but this does not mean the end is the public’s happiness (48).

Kings desire to be absolute, and there are those argue that the best way to do is to have the people love them. Rousseau says that this “precept is all very well, and even in some respects very true,” but it will always be ridiculed at court. Yes, the power of the people’s love is by far the greatest, but it is only conditional, and princes will never be content with it. The best kings, Rousseau states, desire to be in a position where they can be wicked without losing their throne. “Their first personal interest is that the people should be weak, wretched, and unable to resist them” (48).

Monarchies are suitable for the large States. The more numerous the public administration, the smaller the relation between the prince and the subjects becomes (49). But if the ratio between the prince and the subjects grows closer to equality then the State becomes a democracy. “Again, as the government is restricted in numbers the ratio increases and reaches its maximum when the government is in the hands of a single person” (49). However, it is hard for a great State to be well governed, and it is harder for it to be so by a single man; but everyone knows what happens when a king substitutes others for himself.

There is an essential and inevitable defect in a monarchy that will always rank it below a republican government according to Rousseau: in a republic the public voice hardly ever raises incompetent men to the highest positions as they wish to fill them with honor. In monarchies, however, those who assume power are often “petty blunderers, petty swindlers, and petty intriguers, whose petty talents cause them to get into the highest positions at court” (49), but as soon as they receive power they showcase their ineptitude to the public. The public is not as often mistaken when choosing the prince; “a man of real worth among the king’s ministers is almost as rare as a fool at the head of a republican government” (49). For a monarchy to be well governed, its population and extent must be proportionate to the abilities of its governor. It is easier to conquer than to rule (50).   

The biggest disadvantage that is most felt in monarchical government is the want of the continuous succession which, in the other government, provides “an unbroken bond of union” (50). When one king dies, another is needed; but elections leave “dangerous intervals and are full of storms,” and they are often prone to corruption. The prince to whom the state has agreed to rule over them cannot help selling it and repaying himself the money the powerful have taken from him. Under this type of administration, bribery sooner or later spreads through every part of the land, and the peace enjoyed under a king is worse than the disorder of a period when the government is suspended between successive reigns or regimes (50). Crowns have become hereditary in certain families, and an order of succession has been set up to avoid the disputes from a normal election after the death of a king. Men have chosen to “risk having children, monstrosities, or imbeciles as rulers” than to have disputes over the choice of good kings (50).

                                                                                         

These difficulties of a monarchy have not escaped writers who, at the same time, are not bothered by them (51). Their remedy is to obey a terrible government without a murmur: “God sends bad kings in His wrath, and they must be borne as the scourges of Heaven” (51). Rousseau says that this kind of talk is no doubt enlightening, but it would be more in place in a pulpit than in a political book. We know for ourselves that we must put up with a bad government when it is there; the question is how to find a good one.

Thus concludes the thoughts of Rousseau on monarchy. He never outright states that a monarchy is a terrible form of government; he just points out the flaws that such an administration would have.