The relevance of monarchy: Who needs a king?

 As new reports come in on Princess Diana’s inquest, one has to ask what all the fuss is about. Surely, Princess Diana was a highly influential person, whose support for charities was legendary (and continues on), and whose spat with the “Establishment” in the United Kingdom fractured her marriage to Prince Charles. Here then we gain a clue as to her popularity. Being the “People’s Princess”, Princess Diana’s rise to royalty from civilian life was the driving force that gained her her following, her clout in the public eye, with all the attendant consequences. Needless to say, it was this worship of Diana (as well as a drunk chauffeur/security chief) that led to her death.

What is the need for royalty in modern times? Let us discuss one important aspect of the royalty, and that is its political power.

 

There is a spectrum of the political involvement of royalty in the world. Absolute monarchies still exist in Brunei, Saudi Arabia and the Vatican City. In these places, they are considered infallible and their word is carried out as law. Other countries impose legal limitations on royal power in the form of constitutional monarchies, as observed in many European States, the United Kingdom, and Japan. A similarity in these monarchies is their succession by primogeniture, a mechanism that caused the Japanese Imperial Family a recent headache. Because tracing bloodlines is important, a certain status is given to members of the royal family by society in recognition of their closeness in succession to the reigning monarch. Through this, and given the absence of any meaningful opposition to their rule (enough to overthrow them from power), a monarchy is able to perpetuate itself in eternity. Exceptions to this are elected monarchs, such as the Pope, who is elected by the College of Cardinals in the Vatican, in a highly anticipated ceremony, and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or Paramount ruler (elected by and from the hereditary sultans of each state in Malaysia).

Based on the process of succession, and the resulting longer terms of a monarchy, some argue that this system of rule confers an immunity from politicking and corruption that prevail in more temporary arrangements (such as in elections). As a lasting symbol of the state, there is allegedly less tendency for others to attack the monarchy, avoiding the scandals that tarnish the reputation of a country. As a power beyond the political realm and not requiring political support, the monarchy becomes a neutral and independent arbiter of the people’s interests. It is provides stability during times of political upheaval as permanent holders of power. Being born and trained to rule, monarchs are allegedly reliable and dependable.

Most of the benefits mentioned above do not seem to be applicable in the here and now. For one, most monarchies today are constitutional, a situation that binds the monarchy (in various ways, in different countries) from any meaningful political involvement. In fact, monarchs are largely ceremonial figureheads rather than actual rulers. And when constitutional monarchs do become rulers, they have to embroil themselves in the politics of the day, favoring or disfavoring their prime ministers, and seeking to gain popular support. The arguments above apply more to absolute monarchies. One single but weighty question  for absolute rule is: can we always have an enlightened despot? History argues otherwise. Enlightened despots are rare, and rulers have always been fallible. It is even arguable that with so much subjectivity vested into one person, despite the possible existence of advisers and all, an environment is created that breeds nepotism, cronyism and corruption. (consider case studies in Tonga, and Saudi Arabia) It is no surprise that royal families are extremely rich and decadent, whose funances are even propped up by taxpayer money.

Politically, then, monarchies haven’t proven themselves to be particularly effective. How about their social aspect?

 

Monarchies retain so much social attraction even today because of their socioeconomic disparity with the public. Going around in “elite” social circles, protected by their gilded walls and their towering castles and boasting of a bloodline that goes back hundreds of years, royals enjoy an elevated social status that begets itself. That is, royal families are popular because they are royal. The public seems embroiled in cheap entertainment based on gossip and rumors, and fueled by raunchy intrusions into the royal private life. Sometimes though, that popularity extends beyond the tabloids and the paparazzi. In places that elevate a monarch’s status to that of a deity, monarchs can wield a great deal of influence on social norms and political policies by virtue of their strong public support. Thailand’s multiple coups, such as the one in 2006, have been dependent on royalty for their mandate. Recently, the King of Spain rallied his country against an attack by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on a former Spanish prime minister (his “Shut up” statement is now a huge ringtone hit)

On the other hand, and here even some royals may agree with me, the constant presence of the public eye on their every move gets to be more annoying. Royals are pressured to conform to what the public view as “royal behavior”, deviance from which is punished severely by the press (remember Prince Harry and his costume?). Scandal after scandal is published on what would otherwise be ordinary news if it weren’t for the regal factor. Social pressure may not even be tolerated by members of the royal family, causing them to cast away their title in favor of a more private life, free from the constraints that burden a prince or a princess.

But here is where Republicans become a little myopic: No one else is listened to more than Royalty. In a modern era where people have become exasperated, even fed up with the reckless and unbounded ghost statements of their political leaders, a monarchy provides the strong voice that unifies everyone. As a bastion of conservatism, the monarchy functions as a barometer by which the public can gauge their actions. As a symbol of the status quo, the monarchy is able to show people where progress is needed and galvanize them into action.

As archaic, fanciful, peculiar and old as it may seem, the concept of monarchy is still relevant today. Acting as a powerful catalyst for social change, having a king may not seem so bad at all.

OPEC sees the light… but is it too late?

 

You tend to get suspicious when oil producers start talking green. But come to think about it, it is a milestone for the Organization of Pretroleum Exporting Countries to recognize the problem and suggest its solution in one blow by endorsing carbon capture technology in their latest draft declaration. This declaration was made amid the achievement of record highs for oil prices around the world, which called into question the ability of the OPEC to control oil prices (as opposed to merely providing propaganda for not stopping their own profits from skyrocketing) which was established before during the 1973 oil crisis.

 

OPEC now joins the ranks of a mish-mash of organizations promoting environmentalism. Initially a distinctly hippie movement, the move to go green is supported, at least in principle, by most people in the world. In the US, for example, 66% believe that something should be done about global warming. Global warming itself is a hotly contested issue, even being denied by some sectors, something I feel is imprudent at this point.

  

There are different schools of thought when it comes to protecting the environment. Some believe that going for renewable energy sources is important (even for kids!). As expected, it is the shift away from lucrative petroleum products that causes the greatest difficulty when it comes to public policy and thus the resistance from usual suspects. Petroleum companies and their oil lobbies spend millions of dollars to protect their interests in legislature, with a good deal of success, even with the World Bank. These companies, worried about consumer backlash on product usage, have launched riveting and provocative information campaigns about their own corporate social responsibility. That doesn’t prevent others from calling their bluff and accusing them of hypocrisy, human rights violations, among others. OPEC countries themselves are crucial to foreign interests, particularly that of the United States, in their reliability in providing for American energy needs. It comes as no surprise when a link is drawn between America’s forays into Middle East security issues and its own economic agenda.

 

Militancy is the tool of choice for other organizations, most notably that of Greenpeace. Using methods bordering (only?) on the violent, Greenpeace’s disregard for laws and surreptitious environmentalism has enraged many from an otherwise dormant civil society and sometimes elicited a rejection of their agenda altogether. Clearly, despite all the publicity, militancy may not be helpful.

We also have a variety of other solutions from an anti-global warming diet  (which blames cows) to promoting a carbon tax. The latter interests me in that there is now a more direct involvement by people on the grassroots in environmental protection, also with concrete benefits in protecting the environment (such as funds for research and development, and taking the strain of industries bearing the brunt of anti-pollution policies). Despite all the efforts since the conception of the environmental movement, and even in the face of its growing momentum in all the nooks and crannies of society, global warming is accelerating. Makes us ask what exactly we are doing wrong. The (alleged) consequences of global warming makes us fear it all the more, from freak storms in Bangladesh to security threats, to economic insecurity in countries rich and poor.

As world leaders rush to Bali to discuss new policies to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012, one is left to contemplate the individual’s role in all this. Personally, I’m left with desperation and fright.

Can one species save a dying earth?

This brings to mind Carl Sagan, and his moving reading from his book, Pale Blue Dot.