Political science, like all sciences, mocks the real world when it invents categories and forces the world around it to fit into an organization made unnaturally neat. Or perhaps it is the English language to blame. German and Greek let us string concepts into almost endless words, reflecting at least some of the real richness of the world around us. The concept of "Monarchy" is one such manmade pigeonhole that masks some of the vibrant diversity of manmade social and political systems. This series of articles will look at a few fault lines that run through the world of 'monarchy', at least in the western world.
One fundamental commonality shared by all monarchies is the idea that one or two individuals possessed some special status which was normally conferred for the life of the monarch. To further understand a particular system, there are a few questions we can ask that quickly illuminate the crucial aspects of that system. Namely:
- What are the accepted ways in which a monarch gains his/her special status?
- How is the special status of the the monarch maintained?
- What is the scope of power acceeded to the monarch?
At the end of the series we will apply these dimensions to a variety of monarchical systems to see how complete a picture these questions provide, and to see where the real world is, once again robbed of its true richness.
Since we are discussing modes of thought and organization with origins in the distant past, let us follow an ancient precept, namely to start at the beginning (dating back at least to the musical Sound of Music). There are many routes to power, some of which will be more or less acceptable in any social/political context. Here are a few examples:
In ancient Germany (in the era of Julius Caesar), the German people were organized into a swirling pattern of larger and smaller people groups (called by the Romans nations and tribes). On occassion, a collection of Germans would establish a firm group identity through mechanisms that are still not fully understood. A common feature of these groups was to identify a *pair* of kings. Very crudely put - one king was the steward and priest for the nation when at peace, the other the great general for the nation when at war. The kings would be selected in popular assemblies and 'raised on the shield'. The liberty of the people was not without constraint - only members of a limited set of recognized 'noble' families could be proclaimed king, the best of which could trace their geneologies back to the very gods. It should be noted that this form of election was not democratic in any modern sense. Instead, we see a limited number of powerful men selecting one of their own to be a ruler over them all.
In the later Roman empire, in both east and west, monarchs tended to arise out of the military. Some (especially in the East) were war heroes to whom the vestigal Senate turned in time of need. Others (especially in the West) were renegade generals who imposed themselves on the Senate by force. To attain real power did not require the approval of the Senate (and many German generals ruled quite successfully from behind the throne), but their acquiescence was needed to attain the title of 'Augustus'.
In the post-Roman germanic west, monarchs typically gained power through conquest. Some kings (especially the Merovingian & later Carolingian dynasties) started with a small personal estate. Others (such as the leaders of the two Gothic hosts and the Vandals) started with no land to speak of, but rather a horde - an entire people on the march. In either case, the successful leaders, through battle, pillage, and intimidation conquered a land to call their own.
As the political landscape stabilized and hardened, the routes to power became considerably less open. From the early middle ages onwards (down to the present), we see long-lived monarchical dynasties forming. For much of these centuries, the position of monarch was purely hereditary, passing (in most places) from father to son. When no heir was available, succession rules were in place to select the next king. (see the Salic Law).
In several monarchical systems, the reigning monarch was either selected or at least confirmed by some set of priests. I call this the consecration system. From King Saul to Charlemagne to the emperors of Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire, it was a religious leader who invested the monarch with his special status. Such systems invariably involved a majorly complex economy of power flowing back and forth between the secular and sacred leaders.
In the above, we see a few examples of the major routes to power:
- Election
- Inheritance
- Coup
- Conquest
- Consecration
Coup and Conquest were constant threats, of greater or lesser threat depending on the political and military strength of the monarch. Some systems were particularly open to coups and rebellion. For example, during much of its history, the Roman empire depended on generals who in some real sense owned the armies they led. The army would take an oath to the general directly, would recieve pay from him directly, and came to see him as their lord and protector. When the Emperor was strong and vigilant, he could manage the power of his generals through frequent reassignments, forced retirements, etc. If the Emperor was not cautious, the temptation to claim the purple grew irresistable for far too many generals. This trend only became worse as the Roman empire came to depend more and more on foreign troops led by foreign generals (typically Germans).
In systems where kings were in some sense elected or selected by the people the kings could just as easily lose support. Very rarely was there any legitimate notion of impeachment or recall available. But, the people rarely forgot that before his ascension the monarch was really just one of them - 'Primus inter pares' - first among equals.
In systems where monarchs were consecrated by priests, the monarch often, in official terms, served at the pleasure of God, as mediated by the priests. The priests possessed a terrible power, albeit one that could assail the monarch only indirectly. In counterbalance, the monarch often held a very tangible power over the priestly class, yet such power could rarely be wielded in a way acceptable to the containing society. The case of Charlemagne is another helpful illustration of the ambivalence with which kings and priests approached each other. By the time Pope Leo 3 crowned Charlemagne, the king had already established an empire unlike any seen in the west for generations. Depending on interpretation of events - Charlemagne either submitted himself to the authority of the Pope or was 'captured' by the Pope by surprise. In either case, Charlemagne simultaneously gained immensly in legitimacy and was bound with a cord of supernatural strength.
Systems based around inheritance provided a fairly stable model. One of the most dangerous times for any government is during transition from one set of ruler(s) to another. In dynastic systems this transition could typically be foreseen and prepared for, sometimes for decades. The failings of the system are legion - from the hemophiliac Romanovs to the decadance of the Sun King to the idiot kings of the later Merovingian line.
In every form of government there exists a perpetual need for the government to justify itself to the people it rules. In monarchical systems, the legitimacy of the monarch depended in large part on how the monarch ascended to power. This in turn affected the powers and obligations granted to the monarch as well as the way in which succession was handled.
No comments:
Post a Comment