EBP #2 - Long Live the King

Adria Lawrence's "Why Monarchies Still Reign" provides crucial insight into the life cycle of monarchies, specifically, how they fare in a world in which democracy is the widely advocated for norm. Across many decades, it seems that monarchies tend to have a more stable life cycle, with many of the most prominent powers still having their head of state be monarchs. Lawrence in part attributes this to the stability a Monarach provides their nation and the disincentives that act on citizens to not completely overthrow their ruler due to the instability that would occur as a consequence. Rather, the stability that a monarch provides incentivises populations to advocate for a 'top-down' approach in which the Monarch uses their power to alter constitutional rights and devolves power to an elected parliament which then rules. 

The desire for increased democratic rights and the existence of a hereditary monarch are not mutually exclusive. In the reading, Lawrence examines the case study of Morocco; the most desirable outcome for citizens of Morocco was a king who 'reigns but does not rule'. Lawrence describes this as a dynamic in which a monarch may act as the head of state but devolves power to an elected parliament/government that rules over the people. This is optimal as it provides a level of stability to the transition into a more democratic regime which is not able to occur with a more aggressive mechanism of overthrowing a ruler of an autocratic regime or an unelected leader. The desire for the monarch to remain in a position of power, Lawrence explains, can often originate when citizens experience economic and social stability, something that they do not want to upset. A hybrid regime of this nature is more palatable for many, as a complete abolishment of the monarchy would lead to a period of political unrest as the vacuum of power left behind has to be filled.

Lawrence however, describes a difficult balance between having a monarchy and a transition into a more democratic state. While a monarch remaining in a position of power, albeit lessened in the face of the democratic parliamentary system, is preferable to many citizens, it is often harder to mobilise action to actually achieve change. Lawrence describes this process of change as being more difficult because the transition is more complicated and less captivating to an unengaged audience as the clear and bold goals of overthrowing a monarch. 

Another obstacle, Lawrence describes, is how far removed a monarch is from the population, making it relatively hard for a population to apply the right amount of pressure to effect meaningful change and hold a monarch to account. Lawrence draws on the example of Morocco, at the time when there was a movement for the King to devolve his powers to a democratically elected parliament. Promises were made by the king that meaningful constitutional change would occur in line with these demands, however, progress was slow and overall insignificant. The citizens who were pushing for this constitutional change felt little drive to continue to apply pressure, as they were relatively satisfied with the current ruler and trusted that things were occurring behind the scenes to progress change. 

The case study that Lawerence provides, among other examples, paints a clear picture that when looking at various non-democratic regimes, monarchies tend to be more stable and long-lasting, especially when facing a transition into a more democratic regime. This is amplified when citizens are satisfied with the standards of living and the ruler remains popular. The fact that monarchs can co-exist alongside a democratic system, means that they are less of a threat to these values and monarchs can retain their position while satisfying the needs of an agitated population. Furthermore, if a population is generally satisfied with the current ruler, they won't feel the need to continue pushing for this change, meaning the ruler remains largely unaccountable. 

Looking critically at this article, I feel the argument that Lawrence presents is sound, drawing on many different cases of how constitutional change has occurred to diminish the power of monarchs, while still retaining their positions. The dataset used to illustrate general opinions and gather statements as to the movement to democratise in Morocco was a Facebook Survey with a non-random population group. This calls into question how relevant these perspectives are, and how much information they provide. Information as to what group of people were surveyed, their position in society, and other influencing facts are unknown, using this data to generate assumptions about the beliefs of the entire population of Morocco at this time would not necessarily create an accurate representation. However, other datasets regarding the transitions of other autocratic regimes, or monarchies, into democracies do reaffirm the picture that democratic transitions tend to be more stable for monarchies, meaning the argument still has weight and should not be immediately disregarded.

In relation to the rest of the course content, the argument presented by Lawrence provides insightful context as to why monarchs remain prevalent across the world and exist rather stably, compared to other forms of non-democratic regimes. This can also provide context as to what citizens believe gives someone the right to rule, and to the extent to which they believe this authority should spread. If a population believes that someone has an inherent right to rule due to their family, they are less likely to rise against it entirely but are willing to fight for a system in which a monarch can exist alongside a democratic parliament. Not only are citizens more comprised due to these factors, but change also occurs slower as the 'top-down' approach to constitutional amendments leads to a shift towards democratic rule that requires the action of the monarch that can be claimed to be occurring behind closed doors. 

Reference:

Lawrence, Adria. 2023. "Why Monarchies Still Reign", Journal of Democracy, 24(2), 47-61.