 | This is Wikipedia's currentarticle for improvement – andyou can helpedit it! You can discuss how to improve it on itstalk page and ask questions at thehelp desk orTeahouse. See thecheatsheet,tutorial,editing help andFAQ for additional information. Editors are encouraged to create a Wikipediaaccount and place this article on theirwatchlist. Find sources: "Criticism of monarchy" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR |
Criticism of monarchy has occurred since early medieval times. It can be targeted against the generalform of government,monarchy, or more specifically, toparticular monarchical governments as controlled by hereditaryroyal families. In some cases, this criticism, also known asanti-monarchism, can be curtailed by legal restrictions and be consideredcriminal speech, as inlèse-majesté.
Monarchies inEurope and their underlying concepts, such as theDivine Right of Kings, became increasingly criticized during theAge of Enlightenment, which notably paved the way to theFrench Revolution and theproclamation of the abolition of the monarchy inFrance. Earlier, theAmerican Revolution saw thePatriots suppress theLoyalists and expelled all royal officials.
Incontemporary times, monarchies are present in the world in many forms with different degrees of royal power and involvement in civil affairs:
The twentieth century, beginning with the 1917February Revolution inRussia and accelerated by twoworld wars, saw many European countries replace theirmonarchies withrepublics, while others replaced theirabsolute monarchies withconstitutional monarchies. Reverse movements have also occurred, with brief returns of the monarchy in France under theBourbon Restoration, theJuly Monarchy, and theSecond French Empire, the Stuarts after theEnglish Civil War and the Bourbons inSpain after theFranco dictatorship.
Aristotle taught that monarchy was only suitable for populations incapable of governing themselves, and believed that power ought to be shared within populations generally made up of equals.[1] He also felt that it was easier to corrupt one individual than a multitude.[2] Aristotle further criticized monarchies for tending to become hereditary, which to him carried the undue risk of conferring power on someone incapable and bringing ruin to the nation.[3]
During theMiddle Ages, theDominicanBartholomew of Lucca, "presented republican government as the only suitable alternative for a virtuous people and identified monarchy with tyranny or despotism."[4] Another medieval republican thinker wasMarsilius of Padua who, influenced by Aristotle, advocated rule by the majority, and argued that "a ruler who is elected is greatly to be preferred to rulers who are hereditary."[5]
During theItalian Renaissance,Niccolò Machiavelli espoused views on monarchy largely in agreement with those of Aristotle.[6] Machiavelli considered republics to be more flexible and adaptable than monarchies to varying circumstances and necessities, providing as an example the different characters of the men who rose to power in theRoman Republic during different stages of thePunic Wars.[7]
During the reign ofHenry VIII,Thomas Starkey'sDialogue between Cardinal Pole and Thomas Lupset, advocated that England embrace a republican form of government, asking "What is more repugnant to nature than a whole nation to be governed by the will of a Prince?"[8] He argued that a community had the authority to both raise and depose its rulers through elections, writing that "this is in man's power, to elect and choose him that is both wise and just and make him a prince and him that is a tyrant so to depose."[9] Starkey intended to present his work to the king, but never did so, and it was not published until the nineteenth century.[10]
The establishment of a republican government under theCommonwealth of England inspired a number of English works attacking the institution of monarchy.[citation needed]
James Harrington espoused his republican ideals throughThe Commonwealth of Oceana in 1656. Harrington argued that the sovereignty must naturally follow economic influence, and that monarchy was the result of one man dominating ownership of land. He advocated the redistribution of property and an establishment of an assembly of landowners to be periodically replaced by elections. He warned that a failure to redistribute property would lead to a restoration of an oligarchic monarchy.[11]
John Milton also published arepublican essay during this time, characterizing monarchy as "a government burdensome, expensive, useless and dangerous."[12]
Algernon Sidney argued that monarchy was "founded upon human depravity." He attacked the French monarchy as corrupt and unpopular and held up republicanSwitzerland as one of the most peaceful and successful nations in Europe.[13]
TheDutch-Jewish philosopherBaruch Spinoza held a preference for democratic over monarchical institutions.[14] He believed all monarchies amounted to legal fictions because no single human being was capable in reality of holding and exercising all of the power implied by sovereignty.[14]
During theFrench Revolution there were public supporters of republicanism as early as 1790, but public opinion and the vast majority of the French deputies were still at that point in favor of monarchy.[15] There was fear of uncertainty regarding abolishing the monarchy, and it was widely believed that getting rid of the king would produce political disorders such as anarchy or invasion.[16] The subsequent temporary assumption of the executive by theAssembly in the wake of theFlight to Varennes did much to dissipate such fears.[17][18]Condorcet began to publicly espouse republican views, and yet the majority of France and the deputies were still monarchist,[17] until the perception thatLouis XVI was aiding the enemies of France during theWar of the First Coalition led to the abolition of the monarchy in September 1792, and the establishment of theFirst French Republic.
In 1804, as the government of France was moving towards declaring the nation an empire,Lazare Carnot made a case before theTribunat in favor of retaining the republican system of government. He argued that their had been a decline in virtue and heroism in the Roman Empire as compared to the Roman Republic, and expressed skepticism that a monarchy would gain for France any advantages in the fields of domestic or foreign policy.[19]
In the early nineteenth century, the Englishutilitarian philosopherJeremy Bentham argued that "the only good act which a monarch was capable of accomplishing was to abolish his own office."[20] Bentham viewed monarchy as an absurd institution which had established itself through force of custom, noting that "almost all men are born under it, all men are used to it, few men are used to anything else; till of late years nobody ever dispraised it."[21]
The leading nineteenth century Italian statesmanGiuseppe Mazzini who was also a prominent republican. Against Italian monarchists, he argued that a republic was more in line with Italian tradition.[22]
In the early twentieth century, the BritishLiberal academic and statesmanJames Bryce contested the notion that monarchy tended to produce stable and capable rulers, arguing from historical example that most hereditary European monarchs for the previous five centuries had been mediocre.[23]
The lower efficiency of hereditary monarchies on the coordination problem of government compared to democracy due to the advent of mass communication has been claimed as contributing to the decline of monarchies.[24]
In the twenty-first century, numerous cases of popular opposition towards monarchy were present. InNepal, theCommunist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) has been historically and openly in opposition to theRoyal House of Gorkha, referring to them as 'feudal forces',[25] and engaging in openguerrilla warfare against theNepalese government, culminating in theNepalese Civil War. Eventually, a ceasefire would be reached[26] with peace talks being made between the Maoist rebels andNepal's interim legislature, leading to theComprehensive Peace Accord.
Additionally, other cases of popular opposition to monarchy would occur in Malaysia,[27] Cambodia,[28] and the United Kingdom.[29]
The selection ofsovereigns generally does not involve democraticprinciples, such as inelective monarchy in states they head. Forhereditary monarchies, royal power transmission is carried from generation to generation, with the title and associated power passing down to anheir. Several royal families are criticized in the world and their legitimacy challenged for example:
The Bahraini protests were initially aimed at achieving greaterpolitical freedom and equality for the majorityShia population,[30] and expanded to a call to endthe monarchy ofHamad bin Isa Al Khalifa following a deadly night raid on 17 February 2011 against protesters at thePearl Roundabout inManama,[31] known locally asBloody Thursday.[32]
A Belgian association, theRepublican Circle, launched the petition "Abolition of Monarchy in Europe" to the attention of theEuropean Parliament in March 2008, highlighting what they perceive as the incompatibility of the monarchy with several international declarations:Universal Declaration of Human Rights,International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and theCharter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Debate between monarchists and republicans in Canada has been taking place since beforethe country's Confederation in 1867. Republican action has taken the form of protests onVictoria Day, the former Canadian sovereign'sofficial birthday, lobbying of the federal and provincial governments to eliminateCanadian royal symbols,[33] and legal action against the Crown, specifically in relation to theOath of Citizenship and theAct of Settlement 1701.[34][35] The debate has historically been stronger in theFrench-speaking province ofQuébec, in which a substantialsovereignty movement exists against both the federation of Canada and itsmonarchy.
The legitimacy ofKingMohammed VI was contested by some in the 20 February Movement of 2011 that attempted to challenge the monarchic system for the first time in the modern history of this country.
Criticism of the Netherlands monarchy has been on the rise in recent years, with notable shifts in public opinion and legal challenges aimed at reducing the king's powers. According to a survey, support for the monarchy as an institution has decreased, with a notable decline in the percentage of people in favor of the royal family. In 2020, 75% of respondents supported the monarchy, but this number dropped to 58% in the following year. There has also been a noticeable increase in the number of people expressing a desire for the Netherlands to transition into a republic, with almost a quarter of respondents favoring this change. In a significant legal development, Dutch activists have taken the king to court, aiming to demonstrate that his role in the legal system violatesEuropean human rights conventions. This legal action reflects a broader sentiment of criticism and a push for reduced royal powers. In addition, historical context shows that criticism of the monarchy and royalty has been present in Dutch society for decades, with notable debates and legal regulations surrounding the act of insulting the king.[36][37][38]
In August 2012, the Swedish Defense MinisterKarin Enström said thatSaudi Arabia could be called adictatorship.[39][40] There have been protests against the royal dictatorship of theAl Saud family and calls for prisoners held without charge or trial to be released. In early 2012, protestors chanted slogans against the House of Saud and Minister of Interior Nayef, calling Nayef a "terrorist", "criminal" and "butcher".
The Spanish monarchy has faced significant criticism and scrutiny in recent years, with concerns spanning various aspects of its role and impact on Spanish society and politics. Issues such as the role of the monarchy in modern Spain, the conduct of past monarchs, and the relevance of a hereditary leadership system have been sources of debate and critique. A particular point of contention has been the conduct of former King Juan Carlos I, leading to public disillusionment and calls for reform. Additionally, the suitability of the monarchy in a modern, democratic society has been questioned, with discussions on the potential transition to a republic gaining traction. These criticisms have led to a deeper examination of the monarchy's place in Spanish governance and society, reflecting broader discussions on the country's political future.[41][42][43]
The debate over the monarchy's relevance in modern Sweden has been a recurring topic, with discussions on the role of the monarchy in a modern, egalitarian society. The question of whether Sweden should remain a monarchy was a central issue in a constitutional reform project that began in 1954, withthe Social Democratic Party advocating for a republic and conservative parties supporting the monarchy. While the monarchy enjoys significant popular support, there are still calls for its abolition, reflecting a divide in public opinion. In addition, the monarchy's survival ultimately depends on the continuing support of the people, as it may seem contrary to democratic principles.[44][45][46]
Thailand'slèse-majesté law makes it an offense to defame, insult, or threaten members of the royal family. The law has caused a rise in discontent with theThai monarchy and legislation.[47] With penalties ranging from three to fifteen years imprisonment for eachcount, it has been described as the "world's harshestlèse majesté law"[48] and "possibly the strictest criminal-defamation law anywhere".[49] It is part of the criminal code section 112, but a violation can be reported by a Thai citizen against another Thai citizen. All alleged violations of thelèse-majesté law are investigated by the Thai police. False case reports take up Thai police officers' time, which leads to less focus on other serious criminal issues. False reports made by a citizen looking to hurt the reputation of another can also lead to incarceration if the accused is wrongfully found guilty. As the demographics of Thailand's population change, discontent with the monarchy continues to rise.[47]
The issue of themonarchy has been contentious within the United Kingdom and the countries that make up the union for hundreds of years.[50]Arguments against the British monarchy include the institution’s unaccountability, that appointing ahead of state using thehereditary principle is undemocratic, unfair, elitist and should instead be decided by democratic elections, the monarchy's expense, the fact that the UK monarchy still holdsroyal prerogative which grants the Prime Minister powers such as the ability to declare war or sign treaties without a vote in Parliament, thePrivy Council (a body of advisors to the monarch) being able to enact legislation without a vote in Parliament.
Britons' views on their monarchy change in response to the events involving its monarchs. After something positive happens, there is a rise in Britons viewing the importance of their monarchy as "very important"; conversely, fewer people rate the monarchy highly after something negative happens. Between 1994 and 2021, the percentage of the public who rated the British monarchy as "very important" ranged from 27% in 2006 to 46% in 2012. Between 1994 and 2021, 10–18% of the public rated the monarchy as "not at all important/abolish"; this percentage increased to 25% in 2021. In recent history, support for a monarchy has consistently been higher among older generations.[51]
