EBP 2 week 7

 Text: Why monarchy persists in small states: the cases of Tonga, Bhutan and Liechtenstein 

 

They are democratic, are they undemocratic, are they the same? Looking at these three case studies and how they work and still have power are some key factors being how the size affects their power, their personal rule personal keeps them in power and by how they are accessible to more of their population. 

Starting off with one of the most principal factors is the size, this is a key and is shared by all three monarchies. The size of the nation shows some important points being that by being smaller they have less ability in the international community and how outside action could cause huge damage to the smaller nations politically. “their inherent vulnerability in an international system made up of many more larger states means small states are typically unwilling to risk instability;” this can also lead to smaller states being more conservative, but this isn’t how conservatism is seen in larger states. “small states are inherently conservative, albeit in a very different form to the ideologically conservative manner common to right-wing parties in large states.” This is in large can still have democratic process happen in the small states even with monarchies. “new King, Tupou V, initiated a reform process that resulted in democratically orientated constitutional amendments.” This shows that even with the idea monarchies being in the type of regime in the past can be seen as democratic in some cases.  

Personal rule is another key factor why monarchy are persists in small states this important as this shows how there isn’t separation of power in smaller states like with the monarch being the leader of their chosen faith and be a part of institutions that have key function in the state like as examples in economics, safety and  governance in one person in a multifaceted roles. “These same factors also result in power being more likely to be concentrated in the hands of individuals rather than legal rational institutions in small states. Based on this observation, we define personalization” The meaning of this is that it outlines in bigger states the leader of one nation would not be the directly in control of ministries, departments and agencies and leave it to others to run and control those functions of that state. But in the monarchy case with the nation being smaller it allows for when that institution to do well it's the monarch that is doing well and legitimizes what they are doing to a greater extent and makes to the sovereign's institution versus in democratic republics it's the success of that institution and doesn’t always boost the leaders appearance while in smaller states it would.  Personal rule in smaller state is tangible because the accessibility of the monarch that can also have influence by the visibility of the monarch and not some ruler far off on the other end of the nation and this can make the monarch more popular.  

 Looking at Liechtenstein and how this small nation monarchy. Liechtenstein is a semi-constitutional and has some degree of separations of power however there is still some extent of political influence even though there is independency from the sovereign. Even though it is a semi constitutional nation that there is still consolidation of power and power grabs. “Liechtenstein Prince Hans-Adam II has increased his power relative to democratic institutions on the back of popular disenchantment with elected representatives.” this clearly shows that the monarchy still has power and has influence of political units. “ a referendum in 2003, 65% percent of voters endorsed the constitutional proposals of the prince, which are broadly seen to have augmented his powers.” the shows that even though they are a semi constitutional monarchy because of his populous style and being close to his sister gave them the power and the influence to symbolically influenced them to vote in favour of his  increase of his power could’ve only been a chief through a small state because of their size and closeness to each other. 

In the case of Tonga as explained beforehand use its close proximity to each other to promote the populism of the king and even though it has Democratic institutions it still plays on the Conservative nature of Tongan society around the influence of the leader but also the church which mentioned about the multifaceted roles of the king which only supports and legitimises their rule and they also have institutional Fidelity which means part of the political system is still part of the monarchy which prevents radical changes which then again plays into the conservative nature. “Christianity, not economic development, was central to the consolidation of power in late nineteenth-century" which only shows more evidence of Tonga used institutional fidelity to keep the monarch in power. 

 

Bhutan another small nation was originally an absolute monarchy and even win the king tried to move to democracy. There was initial resistance of the idea as previously stated small states feel vulnerable to the international system. The monarchy had provided stability, and the people had trust in that monarchy, it’s the tuition, and even though they were had some connection was able to make sure the monarchy still had some power of its culture and identity it’s all chose the process of democratization without losing its legitimacy. “, in Bhutan the king initiated reform in the face of significant popular opposition. And yet, despite the majority of Bhutanese preferring monarchy over democracy, the transition was peaceful with most observers arguing that it was a qualified success.” 

So, to sum up is that even those small states have democratic processes and had reforms the monarch still has some level of power and control over their states, and they still have populist influence.