Having read comments from some Brits who wish to get rid of the monarchy in order to turn their country into a “democracy”, I despair. It is one thing that, in 2024, most folks are illiterate when it comes to science and technology but apparently, history and the social sciences are also badly neglected subjects.
My point, of course, is that these commenters confuse the form of government with the sources of power and the nature of the state.
A form of government may be a republic (res publica, i.e., governance in the name of the public) or a monarchy (monarkhia, rule of one), among other things.
However, both these forms of government can be autocratic (relying on the might of the state) vs. democratic (relying on the will of the people) insofar as the source of power is concerned.
And neither the form of government nor that source of power determine if the state will be liberal (that is, respecting basic rights and freedoms, such as freedom of conscience, freedom of enterprise, or the rule of law) or illiberal/authoritarian.
Midjourney’s response to the mostly Claude-written prompt, “Three regal anthropomorphic cats sitting on thrones, representing the orthogonal concepts of government. One cat wears a crown (monarchy vs republic), another holds a scepter and a ballot box (autocracy vs democracy), and the third balances scales of justice (liberal vs illiberal). The cats are arranged in a triangle formation against a backdrop of a stylized world map.”
To illustrate, let me offer a few examples. I live in Canada: a liberal, democratic constitutional monarchy. South of us is the United States: Also liberal and democratic, but a republic.
In contrast, the DPRK (North Korea) may serve as an example of a state that is an illiberal, undemocratic republic. Saudi Arabia is an illiberal, undemocratic monarchy.
Examples for other combinations are perhaps harder, but not impossible, to find. Orban’s Hungary, for instance, is rapidly converging on a state that is best described as illiberal, but democratic (the primary source of power is the people, not the might of the state) republic. I think some of the states in the Middle East (maybe Kuwait?) might qualify as relatively liberal, yet undemocratic monarchies.
These categories are not perfect of course, and do not cover all outliers, including theocracies, transitional governments or failed states. Still, I think it’s important to stress that the form of government, the source of power and the nature of the state are three fundamentally orthogonal concepts, and that all combinations are possible and do exist or have existed historically.
Understanding these distinctions is important. For instance, there are plenty of historical examples (e.g., the French Revolution devolving into the Reign of Terror, or the Russian revolution leading to the totalitarianism of the USSR) when the transition from monarchy to republic led to a significantly more autocratic regime. “Republic” is not a synonym for “democracy”.
Viktor, Hi, it so happened I have come to your blog for some other reason, but this picture with cats – and, well, definitely important observation about confusion in people’s mind – these made me feel eager to add my two cents!
Understanding these distinctions is important.
Words worth of gold! :) It’s like definition and implementation in programming! Implementation of most (all?) European monarchies doesn’t share much with the formal definition of the term. Another interesting example is “communism” I think :)
when the transition from monarchy to republic led to a significantly more autocratic regime
Ah, it is an “orthogonal” thought, but in case of the fall of USSR it seems the change of “regime” is a mild consequence, far more severe is the loss of, well, “the idea”, goals of existence. I wasn’t there at the end of XVIII century, but it feels like for France however the revolution eventually brought good fruits, even though decades later. In this two situations differ greatly :)
Communism vs. capitalism I think brings another dimension: the structure of the economy. Is it privately owned or publicly owned? Is it governed primarily by market forces or by central planning? (E.g., the brittleness of central planning, I think, was one of the major reasons of the downfall of the USSR and its allies; and allowing market forces even in a state-dominated economy is what helped China.)