The welcome persistence of monarchy

The United States of America was founded as a result of a rebellion against monarchy -- specifically, excessive taxes and infringements on liberty by King George III. Throughout its history, the U.S. has tended to favor republican movements and states, from supporting the independence movements against Spain in the early 19th century to casting World War I (after the abdication of the Russian czar) as a war against autocracy.

Even so, the United States, especially since World War II, has built some of its strongest alliances with monarchies. From the special relationship with the United Kingdom to the alliance with Saudi Arabia, both of which will survive disagreements with the current U.S. administration, the alignment of the United States with these crowns is indispensable to the American role in the world. While these states can vary in their political systems, from absolute monarchies to those in which royal houses reign but do not rule, their survival through the modern era illustrates the underlying strength of this form of government.

Monarchy is not an artifact of medieval history, quaint but fading from importance. Rather, it is a legitimate alternative, showing in some cases greater flexibility and survivability than other systems, from one-party states (remember the USSR?), to military dictatorships, to the failed states that often result from too-rapid movement toward elections without necessary societal foundations.

There is a temptation among politicians to believe that momentary shifts toward their preferences herald a coming golden age of hope and change. In the aftermath of World War I, monarchies across Europe, from the Russian Empire to Austria-Hungary to Germany were replaced by republics.

Free elections led in some cases to victories by anti-democratic parties -- German Nazis, Italian Fascists, the pro-Communist Popular Front in Spain -- or led to such political chaos that the military seized power. The Arab Spring of recent years was another example of a republican wave, with secular or military dictatorships falling to popular uprisings, which proved unable to govern more effectively than the regimes they replaced.

In Europe of the 1920s, not all monarchies were toppled. Indeed, the U.K. retained not just its king, but its democratic processes. During the Arab Spring, no monarchies fell to street demonstrations. In both cases, these states could tap into a deep social foundation, a desire for stability in the midst of regional tumult and, in most cases, monarchs that were willing to symbolize a selfless devotion to their people, in contrast to the actions of demagogues, partisan movements, or more narrow special interests.

When one considers the prominent and prosperous states that continue as monarchies -- the U.K., Japan, Saudi Arabia, Spain -- as well as less strategic states that are nonetheless more stable than many of their neighbors -- Kuwait, Denmark, Brunei, Belgium Sweden, Norway -- along with the Commonwealth States that retain Britain's Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch -- Australia, Canada, the Bahamas, New Zealand, and 12 other nations -- we see that monarchy is not outdated or obsolete.

Terms such as "imperial" or "king" tend to be used more often as insults in American politics, representing resentment over the excessive use of power without check. In practice, monarchs throughout the world tend to be far more constrained and measured in their political acts than elected presidents or prime ministers. The Spanish king serves as commander in chief of their armed forces, but would never deploy forces in the absence of direction by the Cortes. Queen Elizabeth II can dissolve parliament and demand new elections, but again would not do so without being asked by the prime minister.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, nearly every king since that nation's foundation has been more pro-Western, more progressive, and more reform-minded than major elements of the population. The current King Abdullah, for example, implemented local elections, created gender-integrated university education, and spoke of a time when Saudi Arabia could recognize the state of Israel -- measures unacceptable to large numbers of Saudi citizens, and which no elected republican ruler could ever propose.

While as a republican and Republican I would not propose the re-imposition of the monarch in the United States, it is time to rethink our consideration of monarchies in the world. If the choice is between the uncertainties of a volatile electorate, as we have seen in the Middle East since the Arab Spring, or a population susceptible to the extremes of Left and Right, as history showed in Spain, Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, perhaps we should consider more favorably states characterized by ruling dynasties.

Wayne Bowen, a U.S. Army veteran, received his Ph.D. in history from Northwestern University. He resides in Cape Girardeau.