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.

Is Saudi Arabia Victimizing a Rape Victim?

 

Rape is always a tragedy. Unconsented and forcibly acquired sex breeds deep psychological wounds in anyone, whether young or old, whether Christian or Muslim, whatever race a person is. It is not surprising then that some countries have imposed stiff penalties for convicted rapists, ranging from several years of imprisonment to death.

 While the accountability of rapists has long been established, questions have arisen as to the role that victims play in the act of rape. It may be politically incorrect to say this, but some cultures maintain that the rape victim may also be to blame for exposing himself/herself to rape, for inducing sexualized feelings in the rapist-to-be, or, in simpler terms, for “asking for it.” I highly doubt that anyone asks to be raped, for that wouldn’t be rape, by definition (although resistance to sex is a fetish for some).

Must the rape victim be held accountable for not providing self-protection?

Let’s analyze accountability first. Accountability is a social precept materialized in the legal system. It is created to achieve justice in the eyes of society. This definition of accountability allows us to accept the differing burdens of proof for rape in various societies (see case studies of the UK, India, and Iran). It also accounts for the gradations in the severity of the punishment meted out to rapists. It is this spectrum of societal reactions to rape that has allowed Saudi Arabia to inflict 200 lashes and apply a six-month prison sentence onto a gang-rape victim. Was this justified in the context of Saudi Arabian perceptions of accountability?

The person in question is a 19-year old woman gang-raped by the companions of a man she met to retrieve some photographs. She was convicted for violating a law that prohibits women from meeting with an unrelated man. The reason for this law is to prevent unfaithfulness among married women, as well as premarital sex for unmarried women. The burden also of sexual inhibition is placed largely on women, who have to dress modestly (understatement?) in order not to induce sexual feelings in men who observe these women.

Saudi Arabian conservatives may feel then that the punishment was justified. Reformists though have cried out for justice. The comparison between the physical punishment and detention of the rape victim and her rapists is something worth noting. Her rapists received a sentence ranging from 2 years to 9 years. This woman, upon appeal, had her own sentence increased to the 200 lashes, from a previous number of 90, for “going to the media”, and “trying to influence the court”.

Considering all of these factors, I feel that Saudi Arabia has aggravated the victimization of this woman. Knowing the intense psychological (and physical) pain that this woman underwent, and considering the life-long discrimination she will face in her community, punishing her and giving relatively light sentences to her rapists is an insult to human dignity. Punishing her for the association with men is punishing the inevitable, and requires obedience to a highly isolationist and disempowering regulation that binds Saudi Arabian women only to the home. Increasing her punishment after “going to the media” for fear of influencing the court’s decisions speaks more of the susceptibility of the judiciary to public pressure than of her obstruction of justice. Which makes us argue: 1) Why shouldn’t the public be able to influence the court, which is acting to preserve social justice anyway?, and 2) Why should the court prevent women from publicizing their plight to the public?

The past events have spat in the face of the reforms of the ruling King to liberate women from the shackles that bind them. When Islamic countries like Malaysia and Indonesia have been able to foster women’s rights without expending religion, we can’t help but wonder: Is patriarchy in other Islamic countries really due to Islam, or due to fear of the empowered woman?

Maybe Saudi Arabians should stand up and challenge the patriarchy. Maybe Muslims should re-examine how they practice Islam, and ask whether it is God who legislates injustice, rather than man. I believe Islam protects the dignity of women. I believe Islam does not disabuse its believers of their humanity.