Reprinted from The Remnant Newspaper. The second of a three-part series.
Real Catholics
A short while ago, a Mr. Michael Voris, who calls himself “The Real Catholic,” called for America to change its system of government from a democracy to a “benevolent” Catholic dictatorship, a system Mr. Voris called a “Catholic Monarchy.” In Mr. Voris’s ideal system, voting, to the extent it would be allowed at all, would be confined to Catholics. Now, I am always a little uncomfortable with people who call themselves the “real” anything; I cannot get over the feeling that were I to venture a contrary opinion, I would be considered less “real,” or in this case perhaps outright heretical. Nevertheless, while Mr. Voris might be the real Catholic, I don’t think he is the real monarchist; I think he is talking about something quite different, something which Dr. John Rao calls regalism, which is often confused with monarchy.
Real Regalism
Regalism was a development of the late Middle Ages and early modern period that sought to centralize all power in the hands of the king. All social and economic institutions, even—or especially—the Church, were brought under royal control. This was the beginning of the modern “nation-state,” in which all loyalties, and all power, were transferred to the state in the person of the king; from there it was but a short step to replace the all-powerful king with an oligarchy or a democracy, or more usually, an oligarchy disguised as a democracy.
Regalism was, we might say, “non-denominational”; it was practiced by both Catholic and Protestant monarchs. Long before the Reformation, the state was expanding its power at the expense of the Church. The taxing of the clergy, the consolidation of ecclesial courts into civil ones, intrusion into the educational system, the replacement of the Church’s charities with the welfare state, and royal control of clerical appointments were some of the signs of the expanding power of the state. The Reformation merely continued this process, since so many of the “reformers” were more than willing to replace the pope with the prince to enforce a confessional conformity. The Reformation depended on lay power, and gave a justification for that power, but the way had been prepared by Catholic monarchs. And while the Catholic kings never succeeded in having themselves declared head of the Church in their realms, they came very close. For example, Pope Julius III could write to the French King Henry II, “You are more than pope in your kingdoms,” and when Richelieu was appointed Cardinal, he sent his letter of thanks not to the pope, but to the king, the real religious power in France.
Nowhere was this royal control more damaging to the Church’s mission than in the case of the missions. The king’s writ extended to distant lands, and the missions became another instrument of state power in which nationalism dominated over salvation. Missionary activity was subordinated to commercial and political objectives, thereby making the work of the Church seem like a mere instrument of what would later be called “colonialism.” The national control of the missions created tremendous jurisdictional problems, so that the new believers didn’t know which authority to believe, as bishops from the home country vied with vicars from the Vatican. And the nationalist missions impeded the development of native clergy, since this could form a source of opposition to royal control. Tremendous opportunities were lost in Japan and China, losing not only billions of souls for Christ, but changing the course of history; imagine how different things would be today if these oriental powers had become Catholic.
This regalism was a vast departure from the norm of medieval monarchies. Rather than a plenary authority, subjugating all to the the royal will, medieval kings tended to have a limited authority as heads of a rich network of social institutions, each with their own domain, authority, and dignity. There was of course the Church, but also the guilds, the towns, barons great and small, universities, and associations of all sorts. The king’s writ might run as law, but there was very little he could actually write in his writ, given the plurality of powers that surrounded him. People were conscious of their rights and privileges, and willing to fight for them, as Richard II of England discovered when he tried to impose a poll tax (essentially, an income tax) on the people, and found that within a few weeks a vast peasant army swept through the kingdom to capture both London and the king. Treachery got Richard out of his difficulties, but he was made very aware of the limitations to his power. In fact, a modern bureaucrat, in the normal course of his day, exercises more power than a medieval king; the bureaucrat can, with a stroke of a pen, take away your business or your children, thereby making tyranny a sort of daily routine; the bureaucrat’s writ does indeed run as law, as long as the proper forms are filled out.
I dwell on the problems of regalism because it is this version of “monarchy” which is most familiar to the general public. Whatever the faults of the American Founders, this was the kind of monarchy that justified the revolution. The same principle that was applied in the last article to democracy also applies to monarchy. That is, a thing without proper limits becomes its own opposite, and benevolence quickly becomes a tyranny which threatens both civil and religious order. But Catholics can look to a wider tradition to meditate on these matters; we need not confine our meditations on monarchy to King George III, or even to King Louis XVI, Catholic as he may have been.
Real Monarchy
Preeminent among our sources is St. Thomas Aquinas. In his letter to the King of Cyprus, he identified monarchy as both the best and worst form of government; best when the king acted for the common good, and worst when he did not. But of course, kings and queens are but men and women in regal robes, and greed rages in their hearts no less in than in the hearts of the commons, and a king no less than a commoner is likely to be ruled by unruly passions. So just as a democracy needs a monarchial limit, the monarchy needs aristocratic and democratic limits. As to how this is to be accomplished, St. Thomas says:
Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, wherein one is given the power to preside over all; while under him are others having governing powers: and yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rules are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set to authority; partly democracy, i.e., government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people and the people have the right to choose their leaders. (ST I-11, 105.1)
We can ask, “If the people have the right to choose their leaders, what is the purpose of the monarchy?” St Thomas defines this as giving a unity to the people in order to direct all to the common good, which is a “unity of peace” and a concern for justice. “Peace” in this context means much more than just the absence of war. Rather, it is an internal harmony in the kingdom that directs all levels to justice, for “Everything is uncertain when there is a departure from justice” (De Regno, 26). Politics tends to be divisive by its very nature; even when people attempt to act for the common good, they also tend to interpret that good according to their own needs and desires. Some principle in government needs to have the possibility of interpreting the common good from the standpoint of the whole society, a good which encompasses all, from the lowest to the highest.
However, the term “common good,” standing by itself, tends to be rather vague and needs some development before it can be useful. The Catholic Church has developed two further principles in guiding rulers to the common good. These principles are not mere abstractions, not the result of isolated philosophers and theologians dictating what they think is good for society. Rather, they are the result of the Church’s reflection on its 2,000 years of experience with governments of all sorts. These principles are subsidiarity and solidarity.
Subsidiarity is a principle which stands the political hierarchy on its head; it states that the higher levels of government exist only to serve the lowest. A higher level of authority can be justified only by the aid (subsidium) it gives to the lower level, and especially to the lowest unit of society, the family. The royal family, the first family of the kingdom, is in a sense the last family, and the the king, who is the greatest of all, must become the servant of all, in the same way that the pope is the servus servorum dei, “the servant of the servants of God.”
Solidarity is the principle which requires that every action of government must be evaluated on the basis of how it affects the poorest citizens, and if it harms this group, it is likely not a just action to begin with. Its signature is a “preferential option for the poor,” and it forms a kind of acid test for the common good.
Note that Thomas does not give specific duties or authorities for each element of government. And that is proper, because the actual distribution of authority is not something derived from the natural law. Rather, it is a prudential judgment that changes from culture to culture, and with time and circumstance. For the character of peoples and nations vary, and the needs of the times change with the times; therefore their particular institutions must evolve from their own experiences and needs. Nevertheless, there are some general principles that we might advance, though they might be modified to fit any particular political tradition.
Concerning the king, he needs to have real authority, an authority that extends to the executive, legislative, and judicial functions. Of course, he should not be the only authority in these areas, nor even necessarily the ordinary authority; but he should, in some sense, be the ultimate authority. The king’s government also needs to have its own revenue stream, one fixed in the constitution and independent of any legislative body. A king who has to beg his bread from the legislature is no king, and whoever holds the power of the purse will soon hold all other powers. The legislature may by its own will supplement the constitutional revenues, perhaps to pay for a war or some other extraordinary expense, and they may control the funds they levy. But for the budgeting of the constitutional revenue, the king should be primary, or even the sole, authority. Other authorities may comment, they may even censure a king, such as when a king neglects the defense of the realm to build himself palaces. But in the practical world, control of the budget is control of everything else. The king should also hold an absolute veto over both the legislature and the judicial functions. And finally, there needs to be a difficult but peaceful means of removing a king; without this, kings themselves become the cause of revolutions.
The more difficult question actually concerns the aristocracy. Both Aristotle and Aquinas thought of aristocracy in terms of virtue and accomplishment rather than in terms of birth and wealth. The latter they considered to be a mere oligarchy. However, men often confuse wealth with worth, and this is especially true of the men with an excess of wealth and an absence of worth. In my opinion, even in cases where there is a requirement of wealth or birth, there should still be a selection process to choose the best of the wealthy or well-born. But whatever the process, the function of the aristocracy is virtue. I interpret this to mean that they should be a source of impartial commentary and judgment on political affairs. In the next installment, I will deal in greater detail with some solutions to the aristocratic problem.
Finally, there is the democratic problem. Democracy works best at the local level, and a national democracy is almost a contradiction in itself, since the staggering costs of national campaigns enforce an oligarchic control. Nor can this problem be solved by some sort of campaign finance reform or even public funding of elections, unless we are willing to forbid all political speech, save that funded by the public purse. But that would be a form of tyranny in itself. The best way to reduce the cost of elections is to make the districts small, which will keep the cost of campaigning cheap, and hence less susceptible to oligarchic control. Small districts imply large legislatures, and this has the advantage of making them slow and unwieldy, able to agree on laws only when they are most necessary. But if one wants a small and more agile legislature, then perhaps it would be wise to chose it by indirect elections, with electors chosen at the neighborhood level, who then meet in an assembly to choose the actual legislators. In any case, deliberative forms of democracy, such as the caucus or the town meeting, should be favored over electoral forms, such as secret ballot. But whatever the size and composition of the legislature, it should have clearly defined and limited powers.
However, all of these reflections, whether right or wrong, good or bad, remain sterile if there is no way to realize them in the existing political order. As interesting as they might be, such speculations are of great value only if they can be led to actions which are effective in the given political order. Even a remnant wants to be effective, to have some actual impact in the world. Political systems arise not solely from mere theorizing, but from actual experience. The task is to examine the current situation, and see what can be done, in this time of crisis, to make the political system more monarchial, which is to say more truly democratic. That will be the burden of my next essay.
“Cypress” is the name of a variety of tree; “Cyprus” is the island which had the king you mentioned.
Correction made. Now I have to change all those articles about the Seders of Lebanon.
Mr Medaille. As you say “whoever holds the power of the purse will soon hold all other powers”.
In this age of electronic credit manufacture the government can will money into existence from thin air and so can the banks (See Chartalism and Circuitism). Both vie with each other for sovereignty. “Pay to Play” seems to be the rottenness in the state of Denmark that is giving the banks the edge. Why should a king or queen be able to resolve this key epic contest any better than a ballot box?
Eliminate fractional-reserve banking.
It sounds like you are talking about Lee Kuan Yew.
I’m just a small town preacher, but if I understand correctly–and at this point I’m not going to read your post again to make sure I do–all we need is:
A benevolent, smart, dependable, self-controlled, (should he/she be good looking in a monarchial kind of way?) candidate for monarch. And, oh, yes, this person must be sufficiently acceptable to the masses to keep we peons from revolting.
A ethically sound thinking group aristocrates. I’m fairly old, so I would begin the weeding process by looking for those who drive their Caddies and Lincolns below the speed-limit, and refrain from unauthorized parking in handicap zones. (Drivers of old pick-ups need not apply.)
A populous willing to give this thing a chance.. Maybe we could float a new “reality” TV show. “American Monarch” to give them the illusion of input. (Of course, some of us might care enough to not participate.)
I guess we would need a palace. I fear 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. is too tacky.
It sounds easy.
The group of monarchs I am most familiar with are those of the Old Testament. Since it is Christmas-time, I’ll throw in Herod the “Great” for good measure.
Not an encouraging lot.
One more: You said: “both parties are really the same party with cosmetic differences for the entertainment and manipulation of the public.” And, “When we look at our political order, we may truly ask if this is what we really wanted, if the true will of the people is expressed in our institutions. Oddly enough, both Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, express grave doubts that this is so. Indeed, this may be the only point of agreement. . . .”
Which is it?
Obviously, I said nothing about the character of the prince. I did mention that he would be bound by other institutions. Princes are but persons, and cannot be expected to be better than that. But some institutional arrangements are better than others. Pure democracy is the worst, for reasons I outlined in the first essay, and any unlimited institution will negate itself. I don’t mind a critique, far from it. It would be more convincing if you addressed what I actually said.
I apologize. I scanned through the piece and, indeed, I did not see you express a preference for a monarch of sound morals.
My mistake was that I assumed that since you spoke of a king with “real authority,” in the “executive, legislative, and judicial”—“in some sense . . . the ultimate authority,” with his “own revenue stream . . . “independent of any legislative body,” over which funds the king would be the “primary or even the sole authority,” and that he would “hold an absolute veto over both the legislative and the judicial functions,” and that he could only be removed with “difficult[y],” that you would want a person who wields such power to be of excellent character. Again, I apologize. My assumption was bolstered by your paraphrase of Thomas of Aquinas that monarchy is the best form of government “when the king acted for the common good.”
Since the character of the monarch is a matter of indifference that will make finding a suitable candidate easier. Thanks for the clarification.
To accept a monarch–or any ruler–is to accept the inevitability of a bad ruler. That’s the human condition, and there is nothing to be done about it. Nevertheless, rulers, of whatever sort, can be fenced in by other sources of authority; that is what a proper polity is. And some institutions are more conducive to the exercise of justice than others. Not that justice will be exercised in any particular situation, but that at least the situation allows for it. A democracy does not; votes–not virtue–are the only things that count, or indeed are counted. It is not that character in a king is unimportant, but you cannot assume that all kings will be of good character. Generally, they will be like everybody else, good and bad. But in either case, there are (or should be) other institutions with the right and duty to comment on their actions, and in extreme cases, to remove them.
Mr. Merrell, we know you don’t agree with Medaille, but I don’t understand why you have to speak to that disagreement like some sardonic, locker-room jock. It seems to me that neighborliness and kindness are virtues which can transcend disagreements, even fundamental ones. Nothing in John’s disputation is hateful, aggressive, or disinterested in thoughtful criticism. His own critiques of democracy, though not infallible, are also not without a great deal of gravity and offer some insights that even proponents of that institution would have to admit are true and demand attention. Why can’t you offer your responses in a respectful, adult manner?
Samuel,
Thanks for caring enough to question the tone of my reply. It is not my intention to discourse in a non-adult manner, or to insult others. I have noticed that sarcasm is a tool that is used quite a lot on this site. I would also point out that Mr. Medaille’s description of the American political process, though true in many ways, is not free of at least the implication of insult. I thought I was writing within the norms that I have observed here. If I overstepped the bounds of propriety, I am sorry. In reflection, my comment about not rereading Mr. Medaille’s piece was inappropriate. You are right, I do disagree, but the articles are worth reading.
My point, devoid of flourishes, and reduced to the minimum is: Thus far the monarchy proposal strikes me as being made up of elements so improbable in the real world–especially the USA version thereof–that outside of the purely theoretical realm it is a non-starter. It strikes me so much so, that I have wondered whether Mr. Medaille’s third installment–especially since he requested the suspension of disbelief–will include a surprising turn.
Mr. Medaille:
You assert that “regalism was a vast departure from the norm of medieval monarchies,” but do not provide a single historical example of an actual medieval monarchy which demonstrates this norm. Would you be able to provide such an example?
Quote:
I look forward to this!! As a Southerner, I have a weakness for honour and virtue.
Plato’s Book 3 of Republic as well as the last part of what survives from Plato’s Critias are favourites of mine, and the South loved the classics.
triple post
triple post
Please listen to me to read-
Why Monarchy is Necessary for Nepal?
BY DIRGHA RAJ PRASAI
The country is standing on the verge of dismemberment in the last five years. When the relationship between the king and the people have been detached one can easily imagine, Nepal can’t remain safe and unified if monarchy is actually abolished from the country. In a country with such geographical and ethnic diversities Nepal will fall into a severely dangerous situation because of the tug of war for power and money. This can be avoided if there is monarchy because monarchy is always impartial politically and of the political parties. All of us are against if there are anomalies within the royal institution, but those things could be sorted out through negotiation with the monarch. But, it is our unfortunate that the politicians have learnt no lesion from their past mistakes. To make no mistakes is not in the power of man, but from their errors and mistakes that wise and good learn wisdom for the future. Constitutionalism is the way of the nation. But the profounder of parties don’t like the follow the norms of the constitution and existing laws. There is establishing the anarchism by such destructive activities. The leaders of Nepal Congress, UML, Maoists and other don’t like to improve their mistakes.
Nepal has been always showing goodwill towards India. Cordial people to people level relations between Nepal and India has existed since ancient times. We have to keep friendly relations with India due to our similar cultural and religious traditions. But, since 2005, the cordial situation is humiliating day by day between Nepal & India. The permanent institution- ‘Monarchy’ can put unites the cordial relation between Nepal & India. In between the two big neighbors-China & India, the monarchy had been playing a balanced role. Nepalese monarchial system has been supporting-‘One China policy’- Tibet as an integral part of China. But, in the absence of Monarch- RAW (India’s the Research and Analysis Wing) and CIA (Intelligence agency of America) approach their agendas to destroy the Nepalese identity, unity and the Chinese integration. Nepalese prominent Journalist Yubaraj Ghimire writes-‘in 2005, India was clearly anti-monarchy and recognized the Maoists as the true representative of the people, a force that could not be ignored in Nepal’s path towards peace, stability and progress. Five years down the line, it is clearly anti-Maoists and quiet on, if not indifferent towards the possibility of the monarchy returning to power in Nepal. The people are frustrated with the growing corruption, lawlessness, political instability and external interference that mark Nepal.’ The reality is that Nepalese monarchy is identified the most convincing identity of Nepal’s independence, cultural unity and safeguards the Indian culture and peace also. I think, majority Indian people also want peaceful Nepal with monarchy. So, Nepalese people need to reinstate the amiable Hindu monarchy.
It is true that there are many countries which do not have monarchy still they could remain independent and prosperous. But in a diverse country like Nepal, monarchy is the only basis of national unity and Nepal cannot be compared with other countries. Indian conspirators are taking some deviant leaders of the political parties on their shoulders with the sole aim that it will be easy for them to control Nepal if monarchy can be displaced. Some communist parties take monarchy as the root cause of Nepal’s all woes. But, this is not correct. Nepalese king has ever acted or walked on the path which is against Nepal’s national interest.
Nepal could remain an independent and sovereign country only because of monarchy. The monarchy was pivotal in integrating Nepal, establishing democratic and just society at par with the modern world. But why are the political parties so averse and negative towards monarchy? It is true that there are many countries which do not have monarchy still they could remain independent and prosperous. Nepalese king has ever acted or walked on the path which is against Nepal’s national interest. Gorkha was one country since ancient time. This country is the result of the unification of 54 small countries or fiefdoms under the leadership of the monarchy.
Many countries where monarchy was displaced have now ceased to exist and several other have fallen into anarchy and civil war. Therefore, it will be totally inappropriate without knowing fully the ground realities. It was not for whether to keep monarchy or not. The constituent assembly is just a representative organization to formulate a new constitution and it does not have any right to displace monarchy. Can the future of the country be decided just because so called big political parties ganged up together? Those powerful nations, who in the past shed blood in Vietnam, North and South Korea, East and West Germany, Cambodia, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, are now trying to drag Nepal into a civil war. So, if the political leaders, including the Maoists, tried to trample on this truth, one should know that the existence of Nepal as well as the culture and traditions of India also will be finished. For the sake of the countries identity, we can see the in the Commonwealth system of government (UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the British empire) we have a balance between the rule of the individual (the monarch) and the rule of the majority (the people). Now- the Queen Elizabeth II, a woman, is head of state of all the aforementioned countries- Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
Nepal is the origin of Hindu & Buddhist. This is the land where their civilization began. As Nepal is the only Hindu country in the world with a Hindu king, Hindus all over the world have a great respect and faith for this country. Nepalese around the world and Nepal’s well-wishers are anxious about this conspiracy against monarchy by some deviant leaders. Former minister and elder son of the founder of Nepali Congress BP Koirala Prakash Koirala says–’After republic was declared, no one is secure. Due to the passiveness of nationalist elements, to much foreigner are playing to desintrigate the Nepalese unity in the current vacuum. The 12 points agreement was worked out of Delhi. All these destructive works were carried out from Delhi. The republic was declared by the force of Indian leaders. King did not take decisions under foreign pressure. Nepali Congress’s major ideology is constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy. Constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy is still a need in Nepal. But, the international force- such as India, America removed the monarchy. Girija Prasad (uncle) created chaos in the country. There is no law and order and the presence of the government is nil.’ (14th Jun.2010 Peoples Review)
On the discussion about republic in Nepal, senior leader of B.J.P Lalkrishna Advani had said: ‘The framework for constitutional monarchy in Nepal should be consolidated because monarchy is the symbol of Nepal’s identity and sovereignty. Nepal should have an active and dynamic multi-party democracy’. But, we in Nepal are trying to dig up a well when there already is water in our rivers. Nepal will not become a heaven on earth just because monarchy is actually abolished and republican system ushered in. When Nepal has already received so much respect and identity for being a Hindu kingdom, why are Nepalese trying to finish off its identity? What is more treason than this? The conflict between the political parties and the king came up because of the mistakes and blunders of Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML and the authoritarian thinking of the Maoist. Why the Maoists are minimizing this truth forcefully? The Maoists should understand the glorious history of Nepal’s sovereignty with the monarch.
Former minister Padmasundar Lawoti says-The Monarchy will itself emerge eventually. Rest assured. We need not to advocate for the revival of the monarchy because the people know it better as to who were responsible for the current political instability-a mess in effect- in the country. The Constituent Assembly has already become defunct and thus there is the urgent need for its dissolution. Those who have made a joke of the nation and pushed the country to this disorder must be taken to task as per the prevailing laws of the land.
The monarchies of Nepal and Thailand have been central targets of these people because they were at the core of, and also uniquely identified with, the Hindu and Buddhist faiths, which pre-date Christianity, do not emanate from Judeo-Christian roots, and are followed by hundreds of millions of people. Nepal was the one and only Hindu Kingdom, with monarchy at its spiritual, cultural and traditional core. The monarchy of Nepal, in its various Hindu-Buddhist shades, is not 240 years old but actually more than one thousand years old! To hit Hinduism through its only Hindu Kingdom, these guys felt they had to get rid of monarchy. (Aashutosh Sribastav)
Observing the political scenarios of Nepal, A Humanist-Switzerland writes- ‘It is wise to restore Constitutional monarchy in Nepal: A monarchy which works under a constitutional which delimits the rights and duties of monarch as well as the citizens and other people in govt. and the society. The constitutional monarchy should be modern and progressive. It is a question of jurisdiction and sovereignty of the nation: a monarch, a sovereign is to be the permanent centre of loyalties of the nation; he is to be a permanent expression of the nation to the world. Sovereign is the person who defends the jurisdiction and sovereignty of nation against the whole world, against the internal evils like civil war and external threats. For a lesson, read the history of Afghanistan: As long as King Zahir Shah was there, the country was at peace; the institution of the monarchy had kept the organized mullahism as well as communists under control. As soon as monarchy was dismissed by the communists, then by the mullahs, the country has been facing civil wars, mass-murders, genocides and destruction: first by the Russian Army, then by the Mujahedeen, then by the Al-Qaida and now by the NATO armies: only since the NATO armies began their military actions, THERE HAS BEEN 4.9 MILLION KLLINGS OF Afghani civilians!’ -News Blaze, USA Oct.21th 2010.
Some people lacking information about Nepal’s geo-political stand point along with the cultural history as the king remained symbol of unity in diversity take as an obsolete and ancient institution, but not all countries with monarchy are deprived and destitute. In the context of Nepal, the political parties can always get along with monarchy. Even in simple terms, in republican countries with parliamentary system, a person biased towards a party becomes the president. Already presidential election is expensive there is added fear that the fighting between the communist and the parliamentary parties could break up the country. History is evidence that the parliamentary parties, mainly the Nepali Congress and the UML, who came to power after 1990 completely failed to steer the country and they handed over power to the King in 2001. Later when they failed to get position and power they climbed on the shoulder of the Maoists to launch an anarchic struggle by the hints of the notorious Indian intelligence-RAW.
The King has no role in bringing this sorry state of this country. So, Nepalese people shall not remain quiet if these political parties try to destroy the identity of this country, their tradition and the basic foundation of this state. Therefore, this uncertain and precarious situation can only be averted if a balance can be maintained among nationality, monarchy and parliamentary democracy. Nepal’s independence, sovereignty and democracy can never be safeguarded by abolishing monarchy. If Nepal’s monarchy will be abolished for-ever, the power balance of this region will be disrupted. Nepal’s monarchy is the guarantor for peace and stability of this region. We Nepalese people no longer want the unconstitutional rule of the so called visionless larger party leaders including Maoists. The Nepalese only believe in parliamentary democracy and always follow the constitutional path. Now, the only way would be the acceptance and restoration of benevolent and people-oriented monarchy. There is, thus, no way other than to form a national government of all sides, reinstating the 1990 constitution including the king, through a broad conference and find a way out to solve the country’s problem.
dirgharajprasai@gmail.com
I have been realizing that today, in the terra of anarchy the study of “Monarchism” is must for every pure citizen
The King of Cyprus was a Roman Catholic king imposed on a Greek Orthodox populace. For that reason alone, he and his Lusignan dynasty would likely already have been considered tyrannical by his subjects.
Comments are closed.