This is true, but what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The great bulk of republics that existed in the modern era haven’t survived either, enduring a revolution or coup de’ta within the same generation to give way to another republic.
And that cycle definitely tells us far more about the pros and cons of republics.
Indeed. There are plenty of republics that have failed over time. It’s just that we’re currently in an age where republics are the default form for a fresh state. Creating monarchies is out of vogue.
Turn the clock back a century and a half and the opposite was true.
We have no guarantee that the future brings inevitable tendency to more republicanism. Monarchies may return to vogue, or some new, entirely novel way of organising a state may be devised.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I suppose it would be possible to crunch the numbers, see how many republics have gone under compared to monarchies in say, the last century. And adjust for numbers started and maybe continent.
You’d need a strong knowledge of history or time on your hands though.
You’d also have to draw your definitions carefully. How many republics have ruled what is now Pakistan since the end of the Raj, for example? Do you count the various various coups and military regimes as “new” or no?
Not at all.
Three searches on Wikipedia. 15 minutes to prepare the post.
56 countries in the world in 1900
31 Monarchs in the world in 1900
Lets take as a crude base point that a countries government continues when executive authority it is passed on by hereditary succession, appointed successor, agreed/negotiated successor or popularly elected successor i.e. a peaceful (not necessarily cordial) transition of power and fails if there are tanks, guns and coups d’etat involved.
List of coups d’état and coup attempts by country
There are more successful coups d’état in “republics” listed in that cite than there were monarchies existing in 1900 before you get past countries whose name starts with “A”.
130 counties, overwhelmingly republics, have had coups d’état since 1900. Not all succeeded, but most have had at least one successful coup and some are into double figures.
You can tweak the definitions howsoever you see fit but the number of failed republics is an order of magnitude greater than the number of failed monarchies.
Not at all, Franco (well, most of his handlers, Franco was pretty far gone by then) wanted Juan Carlos to continue the “one party” system. Luckily, the tides of history prevailed there.
Yeaaaaahhh… You go live in a repressive dictatorship if you want that. Not for me.
Gasp! S-small n- n- n- nations!!! That sounds terrible. Clearly 40 years of dictatorship were worth it, so we can avoid such horror!!!
Imagine that! Becoming a country controlled with an iron hand by a repressive State, having no freedom or rights. Phew! Luckily we dodged that bullet, eh?
Look, I’ll take the “possibility” of Spain devolving into a commie dictatorship over the “certainty” of Spain becoming a Nationalcatholic one. Don’t see that much difference either way.
Nah, the Civil War leaving everything in ruins and needing stabilization kept us out of WWII. Even though Franco really, really wanted to join Hitler. Me, I’d take there being no Civil War and then the Republic joining WWII (on the Allies side) over the alternative in a heartbeat.
The point of modern constitutional monarchy is to set certain primary functions of state outside of electoral politics. It is a mistake, however, to imagine that the monarchy is not subject to democratic control.
The essential goal of any monarchy is to stay in position. Movements, parties, and politicians can gain power, lose it, and bounce back in the space of a few years. Monarchs and monarchies, once fallen, rarely recover.
And the key to staying in position? Popularity. Long term, broad based, and as far removed as possible from the turbulence of current events. A monarchy must think always in decades, training each new generation in how not to fuck up the sweet racket they’ve got going.
Our current monarch has proven herself a master of the art. There is nobody of political significance who’s anywhere near her in terms of popular confidence and support. And while her children were a bit of a mess, her grandchildren look much more promising. Like her, they’ve taken lessons from Diana about how to use the media to bolster their popular support.
Is it good to have a monarchy? Yes, if it works like this. The Queen represents the nation better than any elected leader could. At this point, the monarchy is probably the most functional part of our constitutional settlement.
Well… about that. I’ve been in a position to see the inside workings a bit when in the armed forces. And its not what I would call a sweet racket at all. Royal families are very rarely poor on their own resources, belonging as they do to families that have been on top for generations or centuries. They could easily live the lives of the idle rich if not for their positions. Or, as they sometimes muse wistfully, do some normal job.
Instead they are on call 24/7 with little vacation time and no pension age, always in the public eye with the papers sniffing around for every bit of scandal. They have to live in drafty, ancient buildings. And getting funds for renovations can be a struggle (Our current monarch had some strong words about being required to live in a old dwelling he did not own with no-one willing to properly renovate it.) Things we take for granted having power over in our own lives like getting to pick the person we marry were years of struggle for him.
There is no real gain to it asides from he satisfaction of a duty done well. Little to no power, no real money compared to what they got. It is a terrible job all over, and no-one asked the current generation if they wanted it, they’ve just been raised to it.
There were a lot more than 56 countries in the world in 1900, as the most cursory glance at that list reveals. The fact some of them were not wholly independent doesn’t mean they weren’t countries. In 1900, Australia, South Africa, Canada and Algeria were unquestionably countries, even if they were not wholly independent states.
If it’s really as bad as you say, then your monarchy is built on shaky foundations indeed. Got to keep the racket sweet for the royals, or you’re just asking for trouble.