• Hey (name)! This is a general announcement to all of our members that we have a growing Alternate History and Creative Writing section that is increasingly seeing new content. If you haven't taken a look lately, please do so and perhaps leave a comment or reaction if you read something you like! Let's support our writers!
  • For those of you who would like to support the Sietch financially, subscriptions are BACK. Simply click on Account Upgrades and you will be able to upgrade your account!

Why representative democracy is evil

Lord Sovereign

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Reaction score
3,716
Location
England
The Parliamentary Monarchy of the modern day is a vastly different beast than it was a hundred years ago. The monarch had actual power/authority in the state. Now its basically a Crowned Republic. The monarchy is a powerless figurehead unable to use its constitutional powers. The Queen now has to sit helplessly watching while the incompetent Parliament runs continues the country into the ground.

While I'm not really a monarchist, I'm partial to the idea of an executive Constitutional monarchy where the King/Queen actual governs with the government actual is HER Majesty's government.
As I said, I think we have a little too much democracy these days. Notice how the British system functioned reasonably well up until the 20th century? Granted, that was in part down to Victoria having a twenty year long fit over Alfred and thus squandering much of Hanoverian royal power, but the point remains.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with a powerful monarchy that can actually do stuff. After all, a King or Queen is likely far better educated in statecraft than a career politician who rides to power on broken promises. Not to mention they have ancient roots in their Kingdom, which gives them a stake in its future.
 

Cherico

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
17,183
As I said, I think we have a little too much democracy these days. Notice how the British system functioned reasonably well up until the 20th century? Granted, that was in part down to Victoria having a twenty year long fit over Alfred and thus squandering much of Hanoverian royal power, but the point remains.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with a powerful monarchy that can actually do stuff. After all, a King or Queen is likely far better educated in statecraft than a career politician who rides to power on broken promises. Not to mention they have ancient roots in their Kingdom, which gives them a stake in its future.
Some times I think the vast majority of the british population would be secretely pleased if the queen bitch slapped a few members of parlament from time to time.
 

Abhishekm

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Reaction score
1,199
England is funny. The Queen has little real power despite austensibly being known as the official monarch. Meanwhile the House of Lords seems to draw very little attention but from what I've read holds a disgusting level of power for unelected parliamentary positions.
 

Lord Sovereign

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Reaction score
3,716
Location
England
England is funny. The Queen has little real power despite austensibly being known as the official monarch. Meanwhile the House of Lords seems to draw very little attention but from what I've read holds a disgusting level of power for unelected parliamentary positions.
It's a system that is heavily out of balance at the moment. The House of Lords is meant to serve as upper house and representative of the nobility, and somewhat the advisors of the crown, which belies its medieval origins. And the House of Lords was highly representative of tradition, as people from across the nobility were part of it, from clerics to magistrates.

Trouble is it has become somewhat superfluous, as Her Majesty has allowed a lot of royal power to slip, whilst the House of Commons has gorged itself and turned Her Majesty's government from a Parliamentary Monarchy into a Royal Republic in denial. The Lords, the Commons and the Courts, are meant to act as checks and balances on the crown and each other, so that commoner and lord alike can keep the monarch's ear and ensure their grievances are known.

The thing we must understand is that in England/Britain all power emanates from the crown. When the crown won't rule, one of its organs (Lords, Commons and Courts) assumes too much power and wrecks the system.
 

Basileus_Komnenos

Imperator Romanorum Βασιλεύς των Ρωμαίων
Comrade
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Reaction score
786
It's a system that is heavily out of balance at the moment. The House of Lords is meant to serve as upper house and representative of the nobility, and somewhat the advisors of the crown, which belies its medieval origins. And the House of Lords was highly representative of tradition, as people from across the nobility were part of it, from clerics to magistrates.

Trouble is it has become somewhat superfluous, as Her Majesty has allowed a lot of royal power to slip, whilst the House of Commons has gorged itself and turned Her Majesty's government from a Parliamentary Monarchy into a Royal Republic in denial. The Lords, the Commons and the Courts, are meant to act as checks and balances on the crown and each other, so that commoner and lord alike can keep the monarch's ear and ensure their grievances are known.

The thing we must understand is that in England/Britain all power emanates from the crown. When the crown won't rule, one of its organs (Lords, Commons and Courts) assumes too much power and wrecks the system.
Its honestly gotten so bad that in a crisis if the Parliament votes to drive the UK off a cliff, the Crown can do nothing but watch helplessly from the passenger seat. Intervening in the political process would be seen as "undemocratic" and tyrannical despite the fact that they are legal Constitutional rights of Her Majesty.

Then there's the legal grey area of the British Supreme Court setup by Blair in 2009.

The one thing the British royals have going for them is their long standing celebrity status which keeps the monarchy respected unlike in say Spain where the monarchy is a joke. Juan Carlos' biggest mistake was that he didn't leave any safeguards in place to protect the monarchy's position. Granted he was an imbecile who rode the popularity of the end of Franco's regime.

Conversely in Lichtenstein the Prince was able to secure a popular referendum to give them near absolute power again.

As I'm an American, I like our Representative Constitutional Republic, but these things need strong institutions and a politically conscious public to actually function. In a world where the media is split along partisan lines social media fosters echo chambers dividing the masses its no wonder that the US is experiencing such turmoil.

Though while I'm a Republican (I'm not speaking in terms of the US political party), I still recognize the validity of monarchies as separate, but equally valid form of government. Other people recognize this too which is why its no wonder in nations such as Georgia, Nepal, Serbia, Romania, etc there has been growing support for monarchical restorations.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
Comrade
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Reaction score
1,306
Location
wouldn't you like to know?
unlike in say Spain where the monarchy is a joke. Juan Carlos' biggest mistake was that he didn't leave any safeguards in place to protect the monarchy's position. Granted he was an imbecile who rode the popularity of the end of Franco's regime.
Contra: Franco's biggest mistake was picking Juan Carlos over the rightful King; Don Javier de Borbón.
 

Basileus_Komnenos

Imperator Romanorum Βασιλεύς των Ρωμαίων
Comrade
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Reaction score
786
This chap, right?

If so, dear god, what a chad.
As much as I like the Carlists for the memes, the Carlists were pretty much dead by the end of the Spanish Civil War. They were instrumental in Franco's victory as part of his large coalition of various right wing groups against the Republicans and leftists during the Civil War. Though after the Civil War Franco purged many Royalists from power which was why he propagated a regime around himself instead of actually restoring the monarchy. Most of the monarchists around the time were primarily loyal to the Alfonsian line of the House of Bourbon anyway, so it didn't really make very much sense for Franco to appoint Xavier as the puppet King while he ruled as regent.

Though an interesting pod that comes to mind is if say Juan-Carlos who was married in Greece dies as a result of the political instability there. The Church he was in could have been targeted by a group of anarchists which would probably make Franco appoint Xavier as King. Though this has its own issues as Xavier's son Carlos-Hugo the "Red Carlist" alienated many with his leftist views. Historically he embraced Titoist Socialism as a political ideology.

Honestly the Carlists were a mess throughout this time period which was why they never were really able to fully seize the opportunity to take the throne from themselves when they had the chance.
 

Basileus_Komnenos

Imperator Romanorum Βασιλεύς των Ρωμαίων
Comrade
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Reaction score
786
Franco was the rightful monarch tbh, it's a shame he didn't have a son to succeed him.
What?!
Nah Franco was a corrupt, opportunistic, and self-serving dictator who ruled Spain with an iron fist. Him having a son would have essentially turned Spain into a North Korea of Europe considering how the regime was becoming unpopular with the Spanish public. Him appointing his hypothetical son as caudillo would have likely started another civil war as a weary public turned against the government. The reason he appointed the Bourbons as figureheads was so that the already restless public would be somewhat sated with the monarchy restored in name only granting Franco some semblance of legitimacy.

A military dictatorship isn't a sustainable model of government in the long-term. As the military is largely meant to protect a nation from foreign enemies, and safeguard its geopolitical interests, having it intertwined with civilian government sees become ineffective with corruption spreading through the ranks. It also breeds instability since the government doesn't have much of any legitimacy. It also took power by force, so this leaves the government vulnerable to another person contesting the title of Caudillo. This was essentially how many Latin American devolved.

The thing a monarchy is that there is more legitimacy involved as the King/Queen has long-standing political continuity. The monarch also is a cultural symbol of the nation and is an important part of its traditions. This was precisely why the British monarchy has been able to endure for so long despite being reduced to a ceremonial ornament for Parliament.

The Spanish Civil War and its aftermath was a result of many years of instability which snowballed over time into the avalanche that tore Spain apart. A proper pod for a lasting and modern Spanish monarchy would likely have to be during the reign of Alfonso XII who was popular and well-respected within Spain. He also worked to stabilize country after many years of civil unrest. Him avoiding a premature death allows the monarchy to re-entrench itself in Spanish society much like how the Windsors did within the UK.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
Comrade
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Reaction score
1,306
Location
wouldn't you like to know?
Though after the Civil War Franco purged many Royalists from power which was why he propagated a regime around himself instead of actually restoring the monarchy. Most of the monarchists around the time were primarily loyal to the Alfonsian line of the House of Bourbon anyway, so it didn't really make very much sense for Franco to appoint Xavier as the puppet King while he ruled as regent.
Because most 'monarchists' were actually Alfonsian liberal constitutional monarchists, they needed to be purged. This is why restoring the Alfonsian line with Juan Carlos could only ever result in a betrayal of everything Franco fought for, culminating in the new crowned republic desecrating the valley of the fallen and literally digging up his body.

Though this has its own issues as Xavier's son Carlos-Hugo the "Red Carlist" alienated many with his leftist views. Historically he embraced Titoist Socialism as a political ideology.
Don Hugo only turned to Titoism when he was spurned by Franco. National Bolshevism of the Yugoslavian and North Korean sort was only real alternative. It was perhaps a short sighted and ill conceived move in the way it split the Carlist communion in two mutually hostile camps, but one can understand why he thought he had to.

Franco was the rightful monarch tbh, it's a shame he didn't have a son to succeed him.
This too would have been a workable solution to the problem of Spain, but Franco was actually a modest man and never saw himself as doing anything but safeguarding the realm. Perhaps it would have been better for him to have been ambitious?
 

LindyAF

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Reaction score
1,715
What?!
Nah Franco was a corrupt, opportunistic, and self-serving dictator who ruled Spain with an iron fist. Him having a son would have essentially turned Spain into a North Korea of Europe considering how the regime was becoming unpopular with the Spanish public. Him appointing his hypothetical son as caudillo would have likely started another civil war as a weary public turned against the government. The reason he appointed the Bourbons as figureheads was so that the already restless public would be somewhat sated with the monarchy restored in name only granting Franco some semblance of legitimacy.

A military dictatorship isn't a sustainable model of government in the long-term. As the military is largely meant to protect a nation from foreign enemies, and safeguard its geopolitical interests, having it intertwined with civilian government sees become ineffective with corruption spreading through the ranks. It also breeds instability since the government doesn't have much of any legitimacy. It also took power by force, so this leaves the government vulnerable to another person contesting the title of Caudillo. This was essentially how many Latin American devolved.

The thing a monarchy is that there is more legitimacy involved as the King/Queen has long-standing political continuity. The monarch also is a cultural symbol of the nation and is an important part of its traditions. This was precisely why the British monarchy has been able to endure for so long despite being reduced to a ceremonial ornament for Parliament.

The Spanish Civil War and its aftermath was a result of many years of instability which snowballed over time into the avalanche that tore Spain apart. A proper pod for a lasting and modern Spanish monarchy would likely have to be during the reign of Alfonso XII who was popular and well-respected within Spain. He also worked to stabilize country after many years of civil unrest. Him avoiding a premature death allows the monarchy to re-entrench itself in Spanish society much like how the Windsors did within the UK.
Whatever else he was, Franco was the man who saved Spain from communism. Yes, he was a military dictator who seized power for himself. The very word for "king" in half a dozen languages comes from a man who did the same. There's a Bonapartiste succession, how could Franco's claim be less than theirs? Alfonso fled, Franco fought the reds for Spain and won.

Some will to power is something that will be in common between anyone who actually rules. In my opinion this speaks to an issue with monarchism, namely that almost all currently existing monarchs are essentially, liberals and democrats (in the general sense of the term) who are totally unwilling to take power into their own hands, and would give it away to anything that could be construed as a parliament if they were given it.

Legitimacy insofar as that means a norm such that power has to defend itself less vigorously comes with time, and has to start somewhere. However, I would say there is more natural legitimacy in having the will to power and the means to achieve it, than there is in being handed it by anyone else.

This too would have been a workable solution to the problem of Spain, but Franco was actually a modest man and never saw himself as doing anything but safeguarding the realm. Perhaps it would have been better for him to have been ambitious?
It's unfortunate that modesty and willingness to set aside power, which ought to be virtues, seem so poorly rewarded on earth. Pinochet seems another example of this phenomena.
 
Last edited:

ShieldWife

Marchioness
Comrade
Joined
Aug 21, 2019
Reaction score
6,494
I would agree that representative democracy has some really huge problems.

At the fundamental theoretical level of what democracy actually is, it’s basically communism. Now, that sounds like something a communist would say, but in a way, they have a point. The underlying assumption of democracy is that the people collectively own everything and so it is the will of the people, through popular vote, that determines how all resources are allocated and what rights the citizens have or don’t. Democracy is a form a communism where the people haven’t yet realized that they own the means of production. Of course, if the voters actually started exercising this control that they theoretically have, the democracy (along with the nations) would collapse.

From a more practical perspective, the execution of representative democracy is bad too. Despite the theoretical benefit of democracy, which is that the citizens can protect their interests with their votes, the reality is different. In reality, voters are too ignorant and apathetic to represent their own interests, and so the politicians who they elect turn out to be the best liars and manipulators rather than people who will serve the interests of their voters. Of course, the best manipulators are the people who have the backing of the media, the banks, and other multi-million dollar institutions, many of which aren’t even based within the country.

The claim that representative democracy outcompeted monarchy or nobility is in many ways true. RD can be competitive because it serves the interest of the vastly powerful monied interests, who are the true rulers in a representative democracy, and once those people rose to power in the West, then the systems (like representative democracy) which give them the most control receive the benefit of their power and can outcompete alternatives.

Really, all nations have oligarchies. Even absolute monarchies, since the king must trust in numerous important people to carry out his will as well as advise and inform him. All systems have a minority of people who have the majority of the power. The downfall of modern Western nations is that our oligarchs have no loyalty to the nations that they rule, they in fact see themselves as apart from these nations and at odds with the people, and so their rulership basically revolves around plundering their host nations for wealth and power. This differs from how a king or nobleman might view his dominion, as the source of not only his power but his prestige and the source of the same for his descendants and name: his legacy. So essentially being a part of the nation even if socially distinct from peasants.

In modern Western world, our rulers (the corporatists and their underlings the politicians and bureaucrats) have betrayed their nations in the most dishonorable way imaginable. A treasonous and vile subversion of the goals of democracy using the mechanism of democracy. What am I referring to? Well, in a democratic republic, what can the elites do when the voting citizens don’t support their agenda? Well, just get new citizens who will support their agenda. This trend in democracy we see now in just about every liberal democracy in the West is the most evil perversion of leadership possible and it likely wouldn’t be possible were it not for our democratic governments and the monied interests that dominate them.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
Comrade
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Reaction score
1,306
Location
wouldn't you like to know?
What am I referring to? Well, in a democratic republic, what can the elites do when the voting citizens don’t support their agenda? Well, just get new citizens who will support their agenda.

After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

~ Bertolt Brecht
 

Basileus_Komnenos

Imperator Romanorum Βασιλεύς των Ρωμαίων
Comrade
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Reaction score
786
There is no such thing as 'evil' in politics unless it goes against Gods teachings and Kings are no different to democracy in that regard. Don't forget that God himself wasnt fond of Israel having a monarch.
This is apparent when you account for how many Kings he enthroned and then removed within Biblical/Jewish history.

I don't really see most governmental ideologies/systems as necessarily evil. Though there are obvious exceptions (ie communism/fascism). While I've kind of soured on the idea of the Republic over the years, its not an inherently bad system. It worked pretty well for the US for the last 250 years or so, though like all governments it has its various growing pains. Right now what we're experiencing is now a long overdue period of social and political turmoil/upheaval that's been building over a span of the last few decades. Seemingly minor problems were neglected until they snowballed into an avalanche that swept over the whole nation.

Monarchies aren't immune from this either as the history of the Russian, Chinese, and Austro-Hungarian Empires demonstrate. Had their respective governments had more foresight, they could have easily remained in power to the modern day. Most of Russia's problems were initially minor ones which after being kicked down the road for so long, became too big for future generations to handle. Russia unlike the rest of contemporary Europe was quite backward in terms of social and economic reforms which were largely left ignored until too late. And when the Tsars tried to address it they implemented largely half-measures serving as largely band-aids over bullet holes.
 
Last edited:

Lord Sovereign

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Reaction score
3,716
Location
England
Granted, an advantage of powerful monarchies is that they can course correct a great deal more straightforwardly than democracies. Emphasis on can, as they don't always do. Nevertheless, one good reign can undo decades of chaos (for example, Henry VII of England picking up the pieces of the Wars of the Roses).
 

Navarro

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
6,858
Granted, an advantage of powerful monarchies is that they can course correct a great deal more straightforwardly than democracies. Emphasis on can, as they don't always do. Nevertheless, one good reign can undo decades of chaos (for example, Henry VII of England picking up the pieces of the Wars of the Roses).
And one bad reign can lead to decades or centuries of chaos.
 
Top Bottom