Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Democracy is a catchprase nowadays. Censorship is justified because of "hate speech" which "threatens democracy", parliamentary government is promoted because it is "democratic" and so on. But what is democracy in truth?
In principio erat Verbum...
The word "democracy" comes from Greek demos (the people) and kratia (power, rule). Thus it is literally "the rule of the people". But just like any other system, democracy itself has form and function, which may or may not be in concord. In other words, a democratic form is defined by existence of various formal systems of government with intended function of enabling people take part in the government. In original Greek usage, demokratia referred exclusively to what we would today classify as a "direct democracy", where people not only take part in governance but actually are the government. Current idea of "representative democracy" is in reality an oxymoron, and is actually much closer to Roman diea of republican governance (thus the US split between Democratics and Republicans).
So the democratic form refers exclusively to the political system where people are the government. But functional democracy need not be a formal democracy - and formal republic is not necessarily functional democracy (or functional republic) either. A functional democracy would be a state where people have the decisive impact on the government, no matter the form of the government. It is thus understandable - though perhaps ironic - that a formal republic can impede democratic functioning of the government: many layers of complexity and internal checks-and-balances also serve to obscure the functioning of the government from the outside. The end result is that the only time people have any impact on the government is during elections, which come down to choosing less smelly of two piles of trash. In the meantime, it is the lobbysts and, generally, people with money who determine the course of the government. Consequently, typical "democratic" governance is nothing but one long story of treason by the government.
To contrast, monarchy - at least one where monarch is more than a puppet - is much clearer and easier to functionally democratize. Monarch is a clear focal point, where various interest groups and movements can exert their pressure on. Failure of French monarchy under Louis XVI was not caused by the monarchy itself, or the monarch himself, but rather by what many would likely see as "good / democratic / progressive" elements of government: parliaments, and most specifically Parliament of Paris. These parliaments were dominated by the regional nobility, and rather than presenting will of the people, they obstructed the tax reform, reform of the government, and anything else which might have solved the crisis in France by damaging the oligarchic elements within it. This can be contrasted by the seemingly-autocratic Byzantine Empire, where there were no parliaments but rather a strong middle class of merchants and landowning soldiers which served as a middleman for popular demands: Emperor who failed to meet the same faced possibility of deposition through popular rebellion, and even when all was fine, the mere possibility of revolt served to place a check on Emperor's autocratic tendencies. In fact, the Emperor had to be acclaimed by the troops and people of the capital, thus symbolizing the democratic nature of Byzantine government. Byzantine Empire too started to weaken and fall apart as the rich class of oligarch took more and more power, which eventually led to dissolution of thematic system of military lands and decentralized military organization itself, thus opening the way to Seljuk conques ot Asia Minor as it was denuded of defenders after Manzikert and the following civil war. Even after Komnenian restoration, the Empire remained overtly centralized and dependant on the ruler in a way it never was before, which led to catastrophy when Crusaders took Constantinople. But those oligarchs - unlike modern international plutocracy - never developed the feeling of class identity. Focus was on family and then the state; and this lack of class awareness was part of the reason for resillience of Byzantium, as nobody was driven to screw over the state by class interests. Group solidarity was, in fact, very weak in general.
Modern republics have the same problem as the French monarchy did: parliaments are often dominated by the interest groups, and most powerful of those are ones with the most money. Rather than democracy, democratization has introduced oligarchy. The conflict between Progressives and Conservatives in the US is largely between the international capital (represented by bankers, multinational corporations etc.) and national capital (represented by the armaments and other national industry). At the same time, both of them have little regard for interests of the people they profess to represent. It is no accident that popular response - if it can be called that way - came in the shape of an individual (Donald Trump).
But all of the above pertains to power relations of the central government. There is another way in which traditional monarchy was actually more democratic than modern-day democracy: issue of centralization. Traditional monarchies, for various reasons, usually had very limited governments. While this has been less the case for modernized absolute monarchies, even the late monarchies of 1900s had maybe 3% of populace working for the crown. In modern-day EU, average of 16% of populace works directly for the government, with minimum of 10% and maximum of 29%. In US, around 22 million people work for the government, or around 6,7%. In Roman Empire, bureocracy numbered between 15 000 and 30 000 people, or 0,06% of population (cca 50 million). If army is also included (at maximum strength of 550 000), then proportion rises to 1,16%. Byzantine Empire of 9th century was similar: around 600 people worked in the central bureaucracy, which at population of 8 million gives proportion of 0,0075%. Only when the army, numbering 120 000 in 840., is added, does proportion rise to 1,5%. Reason why this could be done is simple. In both Classical Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire, and in feudal monarchy as well, majority of governance was carried out at the local level. Central government only rarely interfered with decisions of local governments, and municipal governments in particular enjoyed wide autonomy (though it should be noted that this was the case with Roman Republic as well, though it was less of a state and more of a federation of cities under patronage of Rome). Feudal monarchy as well was not a unitary state, but was rather a federation of nobility, clergy and independent cities, all united by patronage of a king. This decentralization meant that government was, even if not formally democratic, much closer to interests and experiences of the local population than the central government was - and also it was much easier for people to rebel against it if it failed in fulfilling its social contract.
In principio erat Verbum...
The word "democracy" comes from Greek demos (the people) and kratia (power, rule). Thus it is literally "the rule of the people". But just like any other system, democracy itself has form and function, which may or may not be in concord. In other words, a democratic form is defined by existence of various formal systems of government with intended function of enabling people take part in the government. In original Greek usage, demokratia referred exclusively to what we would today classify as a "direct democracy", where people not only take part in governance but actually are the government. Current idea of "representative democracy" is in reality an oxymoron, and is actually much closer to Roman diea of republican governance (thus the US split between Democratics and Republicans).
So the democratic form refers exclusively to the political system where people are the government. But functional democracy need not be a formal democracy - and formal republic is not necessarily functional democracy (or functional republic) either. A functional democracy would be a state where people have the decisive impact on the government, no matter the form of the government. It is thus understandable - though perhaps ironic - that a formal republic can impede democratic functioning of the government: many layers of complexity and internal checks-and-balances also serve to obscure the functioning of the government from the outside. The end result is that the only time people have any impact on the government is during elections, which come down to choosing less smelly of two piles of trash. In the meantime, it is the lobbysts and, generally, people with money who determine the course of the government. Consequently, typical "democratic" governance is nothing but one long story of treason by the government.
To contrast, monarchy - at least one where monarch is more than a puppet - is much clearer and easier to functionally democratize. Monarch is a clear focal point, where various interest groups and movements can exert their pressure on. Failure of French monarchy under Louis XVI was not caused by the monarchy itself, or the monarch himself, but rather by what many would likely see as "good / democratic / progressive" elements of government: parliaments, and most specifically Parliament of Paris. These parliaments were dominated by the regional nobility, and rather than presenting will of the people, they obstructed the tax reform, reform of the government, and anything else which might have solved the crisis in France by damaging the oligarchic elements within it. This can be contrasted by the seemingly-autocratic Byzantine Empire, where there were no parliaments but rather a strong middle class of merchants and landowning soldiers which served as a middleman for popular demands: Emperor who failed to meet the same faced possibility of deposition through popular rebellion, and even when all was fine, the mere possibility of revolt served to place a check on Emperor's autocratic tendencies. In fact, the Emperor had to be acclaimed by the troops and people of the capital, thus symbolizing the democratic nature of Byzantine government. Byzantine Empire too started to weaken and fall apart as the rich class of oligarch took more and more power, which eventually led to dissolution of thematic system of military lands and decentralized military organization itself, thus opening the way to Seljuk conques ot Asia Minor as it was denuded of defenders after Manzikert and the following civil war. Even after Komnenian restoration, the Empire remained overtly centralized and dependant on the ruler in a way it never was before, which led to catastrophy when Crusaders took Constantinople. But those oligarchs - unlike modern international plutocracy - never developed the feeling of class identity. Focus was on family and then the state; and this lack of class awareness was part of the reason for resillience of Byzantium, as nobody was driven to screw over the state by class interests. Group solidarity was, in fact, very weak in general.
Modern republics have the same problem as the French monarchy did: parliaments are often dominated by the interest groups, and most powerful of those are ones with the most money. Rather than democracy, democratization has introduced oligarchy. The conflict between Progressives and Conservatives in the US is largely between the international capital (represented by bankers, multinational corporations etc.) and national capital (represented by the armaments and other national industry). At the same time, both of them have little regard for interests of the people they profess to represent. It is no accident that popular response - if it can be called that way - came in the shape of an individual (Donald Trump).
But all of the above pertains to power relations of the central government. There is another way in which traditional monarchy was actually more democratic than modern-day democracy: issue of centralization. Traditional monarchies, for various reasons, usually had very limited governments. While this has been less the case for modernized absolute monarchies, even the late monarchies of 1900s had maybe 3% of populace working for the crown. In modern-day EU, average of 16% of populace works directly for the government, with minimum of 10% and maximum of 29%. In US, around 22 million people work for the government, or around 6,7%. In Roman Empire, bureocracy numbered between 15 000 and 30 000 people, or 0,06% of population (cca 50 million). If army is also included (at maximum strength of 550 000), then proportion rises to 1,16%. Byzantine Empire of 9th century was similar: around 600 people worked in the central bureaucracy, which at population of 8 million gives proportion of 0,0075%. Only when the army, numbering 120 000 in 840., is added, does proportion rise to 1,5%. Reason why this could be done is simple. In both Classical Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire, and in feudal monarchy as well, majority of governance was carried out at the local level. Central government only rarely interfered with decisions of local governments, and municipal governments in particular enjoyed wide autonomy (though it should be noted that this was the case with Roman Republic as well, though it was less of a state and more of a federation of cities under patronage of Rome). Feudal monarchy as well was not a unitary state, but was rather a federation of nobility, clergy and independent cities, all united by patronage of a king. This decentralization meant that government was, even if not formally democratic, much closer to interests and experiences of the local population than the central government was - and also it was much easier for people to rebel against it if it failed in fulfilling its social contract.