MarcosFenn
Gentry
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2014
- Messages
- 78
- City
- Pickering
- Country
- Canada
As heads of state, monarchs are supposed to some extent to stand above the political fray, yet without doubt the history of monarchies has involved personalities who have been highly adept at the art of the possible.
The question arises, if there is a desire to return to a former monarchical state of governance, to what extent is the monarchical dynasty in question prepared to avoid close identification with narrow, sectional interests?
Even beyond the strictly monarchical context, any feasible attempt at régime change needs to take into account the particular contexts of the day.
Let us just consider for a moment the historical experience of Nicaragua: yes, a republic.
For many years, US sponsorship of the Contras, who wished to remove the Sandinistas from office, was based on the assumption that the Sandinistas would not allow themselves to be voted out of office.
Then the Sandinistas held elections and they were voted out of office. (This was duly presented as a victory for US foreign policy.)
So what happened? Did the US proceed to support the new, conservative government of Nicaragua and efforts to consolidate balanced constitutional development? What actually happened was that foreign policy toward Nicaragua was driven by corporations who wanted the immediate restitution of property and assets from a period before the Sandinistas came to power. This the new Nicaraguan government was unable to deliver.
So then what happened? to the bewilderment of cold war ideologues, the Sandinistas were voted into office again.
The same happened in some Eastern European countries: re-invented ex-communists - ejected from office in 1989/90 were in some countries returned to power by the ballot box.
So before one speaks of restoring a monarchy, there are some very hard questions which will be asked, and failure to ask them will store trouble for the future.
How realistic is it to link the idea of a restored monarchy with the restitution of property, assets and palaces to a deposed royal family, after many years?
Should anyone really be surprised that Eastern European (and Nicaraguan) electorates voted into office the ex-Communists? is it really surprising that the common people of a country do not identify with huge corporations?
More specifically, is a royal dynasty, that seeks to be restored, prepared to spare no effort to identify with the common people and their welfare? or is its track record such that it is likely to be perceived as content to be linked with the narrow economic interests of the few?
The issue is, then, not just whether such and such a monarchy will be restored, but, rather, involves larger questions: what sort of monarchy is it likely to be, if restored? who will benefit? and what sort of a track record does the family, and the political culture among which it was formerly prominent, have?
The question arises, if there is a desire to return to a former monarchical state of governance, to what extent is the monarchical dynasty in question prepared to avoid close identification with narrow, sectional interests?
Even beyond the strictly monarchical context, any feasible attempt at régime change needs to take into account the particular contexts of the day.
Let us just consider for a moment the historical experience of Nicaragua: yes, a republic.
For many years, US sponsorship of the Contras, who wished to remove the Sandinistas from office, was based on the assumption that the Sandinistas would not allow themselves to be voted out of office.
Then the Sandinistas held elections and they were voted out of office. (This was duly presented as a victory for US foreign policy.)
So what happened? Did the US proceed to support the new, conservative government of Nicaragua and efforts to consolidate balanced constitutional development? What actually happened was that foreign policy toward Nicaragua was driven by corporations who wanted the immediate restitution of property and assets from a period before the Sandinistas came to power. This the new Nicaraguan government was unable to deliver.
So then what happened? to the bewilderment of cold war ideologues, the Sandinistas were voted into office again.
The same happened in some Eastern European countries: re-invented ex-communists - ejected from office in 1989/90 were in some countries returned to power by the ballot box.
So before one speaks of restoring a monarchy, there are some very hard questions which will be asked, and failure to ask them will store trouble for the future.
How realistic is it to link the idea of a restored monarchy with the restitution of property, assets and palaces to a deposed royal family, after many years?
Should anyone really be surprised that Eastern European (and Nicaraguan) electorates voted into office the ex-Communists? is it really surprising that the common people of a country do not identify with huge corporations?
More specifically, is a royal dynasty, that seeks to be restored, prepared to spare no effort to identify with the common people and their welfare? or is its track record such that it is likely to be perceived as content to be linked with the narrow economic interests of the few?
The issue is, then, not just whether such and such a monarchy will be restored, but, rather, involves larger questions: what sort of monarchy is it likely to be, if restored? who will benefit? and what sort of a track record does the family, and the political culture among which it was formerly prominent, have?
Last edited:
