[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Dictator Dynasties (click to view)
Date: December 31, 2011
There was an interesting study released last month that revealed that 40% of Americans will, at sometime in their lives, work for their father's firm. And the more elite and wealthy you get, the higher that percentage moves, meaning children of the 1% have an almost 70% likelihood of working for papa. The blog post above singles out James Murdoch as a textbook example, a category we could easily expand to include other fortunate sons like Steve Forbes, Howard Buffett, and William Ford, Jr. — and even the occasional fortunate daughter, like Linda McMahon or Belinda Stronach, too.

In this context, it's perhaps not surprising that so many sons and daughters follow their fathers into the political world, or even succeed him as president or prime minister. Democracies see this happen fairly regularly — just look at George W. Bush or Indira Gandhi — as do horrifying totalitarian dictatorships, as we saw yesterday when Kim Jong Un was formally crowned Supreme Leader of North Korea. Either way, the kids were just getting into the family business.

It seems to me that the primary difference between nepotism and monarchy is time and success. If your bloodline can stay nominally in charge of something long enough, your last name evolves into a brand of stability and quality which shareholders come to trust. If your first scion successor crashes and burns spectacularly, however, the whole exercise will seem pathetic and self-serving, and the once-proud family name may never recover.

Oliver Cromwell, for instance, is easy to remember as a vainglorious thug and dictator because his offspring failed to cling to power long enough to evolve into a dynasty whose mystique and allure could rival that of the Stuarts they deposed. As is someone like Baby Doc Duvalier, who, despite succeeding his father as ruler of Haiti while still a teenager, was ultimately overthrown as president-for-life after only 14 years in power. The Saud family of Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, who were every bit as self-serving and dictatorial when they first assumed control of their petro-state in 1932, today enjoy unimpeachable legitimacy and prestige as princes and kings mostly due to their ability to maintain an unbroken string of hereditary tyrants.

By installing the late Dear Leader's young son on the throne of North Korea, the Kim family has now passed the crucial three generation milestone that generally tends to separate the successful monarchies from the wannabes. Should Kim Jong Un churn out an heir of his own someday, it's not impossible to imagine his bloodline ruling that nation for as long as it exists, even if (or maybe especially if) the Kims themselves gradually evolve into weak figureheads masking the regime's true party-military power apparatus. We might even live to see a day when a democratic, or South-annexed, North Korea still retains a Kim in some newly-devised, toothless head of state position to smooth the transition. This, after all, is exactly what happened with the long-reigning Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia, who despite a period of authoritarian rule during the 60s and 70s, was eventually recast as a democratic constitutional monarch in the 1990s.

Of course, the fact that this kind of DNA-based system of government can occasionally "work," in its own troubled way, provides scant evidence that it should, especially in the face of more viable alternatives. We know that one of the most obvious downsides of rule-by-children, be it in a democracy, boardroom, or dictatorship, is that the kids in question are often far too spoiled, coddled, and sheltered to have visions of leadership that extend much beyond their own short-term self-interest; unlike their fathers, who frequently built their careers/companies/regimes from nothing, dauphins often take their life of power and influence for granted, knowing little else. A lack of attention and maturity, in turn, begets a lack of focus on survival itself, and in time the whole dynasty falls from both grace and power after no one could be bothered to maintain either the family brand or the output associated with it. A study in Denmark a few years back attempted to quantify these generalizations into hard facts, and found that any company that trusted its leadership to the CEO's son was likely to reduce performance at a rate at least ten times greater than the alternative.

Obviously, I enjoy ranting against monarchy from the narrow perspective of the Canadian constitution (be sure to read my lastest Huffington Post piece, by the way), but when you tolerate monarchy in any context, you're also implicitly tolerating the whole crooked principle of hereditary leadership, and all of its very obvious side-effects. I often wonder if many of the royalists who eagerly tout the merits of succession over election ("stability!" "non-partisanship!" "bred to serve!") in a Canadian context would feel nearly as comfortable with their own boss being selected through primogeniture, or another Bush in the White House.

Democratic government yields lots of awful rulers, of this there can be no doubt. But the system itself at least nominally enshrines the principle of meritocracy, as well as allowing for rejection of the unsuitable. Hereditary rule, by contrast, seems to place a very high premium on tolerating the intolerable, and for that reason it's a system that should continue to be opposed — both at home and abroad.

[Gunnair]

anti-monarchist rant. As a monarchist, I feel thoroughly preached at. I think I'll just say, "Not interested, but thanks for the pamphlet. I just might read it." and close the door. I know they'll be back knocking at my door in a month or two to once again preach their doctrine though.

[andyt]

I don't give a shit either way about our monarchy. I used to be more against it, but now it doesn't really seem worth all the angst to change it. But to compare it to a Bush or Harper dynasty seems a little overboard to me.

[Gunnair]

andyt wrote:

I don't give a shit either way about our monarchy. I used to be more against it, but now it doesn't really seem worth all the angst to change it. But to compare it to a Bush or Harper dynasty seems a little overboard to me.

When it comes to the monarchy, JJ tends towards republican evangelism for the unwashed monarchist heathens.

[jeff744]

Quote:

Obviously, I enjoy ranting against monarchy from the narrow perspective of the Canadian constitution (be sure to read my lastest Huffington Post piece, by the way), but when you tolerate monarchy in any context, you're also implicitly tolerating the whole crooked principle of hereditary leadership, and all of its very obvious side-effects. I often wonder if many of the royalists who eagerly tout the merits of succession over election ("stability!" "non-partisanship!" "bred to serve!") in a Canadian context would feel nearly as comfortable with their own boss being selected through primogeniture, or another Bush in the White House.

Not true, hereditary leadership for monarchs in Europe was a very foreign concept for a very long time, only when the Romans pushed the idea on them did it start to take. Even then poor hereditary leaders had a tendency to be overthrown by far better leaders (ex. Merovingian -> Carolingian), in fact the Carolingians primarily fell because of a lack of cultural acceptance of primogeniture. Rome also experienced the first period of peace in centuries under the emperors, while the western leaders did weaken over time there were cases of exceptional leaders as well. Britain, The Holy Roman Empire, Byzantium, Persia, Arab Kingdoms, France, Spain, Japan, China and others were all lead to greatness through hereditary monarchs.

Hell, in many cases a monarch is exactly what is needed in order to make rapid and drastic decisions when they need to be made, democracies have a history of not acting until the barbarians at the gate are pouring through the hole they were making for the past decade. Europe is on the verge of collapse and yet they continue to delay and worry about lesser issues, the US debated a much needed budget cut for months. Hell, even the Romans created something near a monarch for when they were in times of crisis and that worked out pretty damned well for them, if a monarch is able to take his position with the approval of the people then he obviously has the qualities needed to get out of a crisis.

[JJ]

Gunnair wrote:

andyt wrote:

I don't give a shit either way about our monarchy. I used to be more against it, but now it doesn't really seem worth all the angst to change it. But to compare it to a Bush or Harper dynasty seems a little overboard to me.

When it comes to the monarchy, JJ tends towards republican evangelism for the unwashed monarchist heathens.

I'm more interested in a response than name-calling.

[Gunnair]

JJ wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

andyt wrote:

I don't give a shit either way about our monarchy. I used to be more against it, but now it doesn't really seem worth all the angst to change it. But to compare it to a Bush or Harper dynasty seems a little overboard to me.

When it comes to the monarchy, JJ tends towards republican evangelism for the unwashed monarchist heathens.

I'm more interested in a response than name-calling.

I doubt it. When you mix Kim Jung Un and the Canadian Head of State together in your pontification of the demerits of bloodline in political or corporate leadership, then you're not relly seeking dialog.

It's really, as you said, just a rant.

You could at least be a little bit more honest about it.

[JJ]

It's not a specious comparison. My thesis is that hereditary leadership provides generally worse leaders in all contexts. Which is to say, Baby Doc Duvalier was a bad dictator of Haiti for the same reason I imagine Prince Charles will be a bad king of the UK or Harold Buffett will be a bad CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. I'm not implying that every hereditary leader is some sort of tyrannical war criminal; that's completely missing the point.

[DanSC]

jeff744 wrote:

Not true, hereditary leadership for monarchs in Europe was a very foreign concept for a very long time, only when the Romans pushed the idea on them did it start to take.

True for the Roman Empire, but the Roman Republic was born out of a rebellion against a monarchy.

[jeff744]

DanSC wrote:

jeff744 wrote:

Not true, hereditary leadership for monarchs in Europe was a very foreign concept for a very long time, only when the Romans pushed the idea on them did it start to take.

True for the Roman Empire, but the Roman Republic was born out of a rebellion against a monarchy.

And yet they maintained the ability to appoint a person with the power of a monarch, they merely lacked the ability to pass it on to their children. Their monarchy was also an example of exactly how not to rule a nation.

[andyt]

JJ wrote:

It's not a specious comparison. My thesis is that hereditary leadership provides generally worse leaders in all contexts. Which is to say, Baby Doc Duvalier was a bad dictator of Haiti for the same reason I imagine Prince Charles will be a bad king of the UK or Harold Buffett will be a bad CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. I'm not implying that every hereditary leader is some sort of tyrannical war criminal; that's completely missing the point.

I'm not arguing with you, but why do you think Chuck will be bad for England? What part of his role will he play badly? And what's the alternative to succession if you're going to have a monarchy? That would be a huge flip for Britain, a real break with its past, and that might not be good for them either. There's a good series on Knowledge about the English monarch from the very beginning - I caught a few episodes and the monarchy, at least in that time is what had Britain becoming a real, unified country before anybody else around there. Being an island didn't hurt either, I'm sure.

[martin14]

Gunnair wrote:

JJ wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

When it comes to the monarchy, JJ tends towards republican evangelism for the unwashed monarchist heathens.

I'm more interested in a response than name-calling.

I doubt it. When you mix Kim Jung Un and the Canadian Head of State together in your pontification of the demerits of bloodline in political or corporate leadership, then you're not relly seeking dialog.

It's really, as you said, just a rant.

You could at least be a little bit more honest about it.

Tried to rep you, couldn't.

JJ you are starting to look like the Bush=Hitler crowd with that last bit of drivel.

[Gunnair]

JJ wrote:

It's not a specious comparison. My thesis is that hereditary leadership provides generally worse leaders in all contexts. Which is to say, Baby Doc Duvalier was a bad dictator of Haiti for the same reason I imagine Prince Charles will be a bad king of the UK or Harold Buffett will be a bad CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. I'm not implying that every hereditary leader is some sort of tyrannical war criminal; that's completely missing the point.

Quote:

Obviously, I enjoy ranting against monarchy from the narrow perspective of the Canadian constitution (be sure to read my lastest Huffington Post piece, by the way), but when you tolerate monarchy in any context, you're also implicitly tolerating the whole crooked principle of hereditary leadership, and all of its very obvious side-effects]

You've situated the estimate and saying you haven't is intellectual dishonesty.
You dislike the concept of monarchies - message loud and clear. Your rant in no way shape or form invites debate so don't suggest it does. It's a post designed to polarize so, as I said earlier, at the very least man up and try to be honest about it.

You may not, as you say, believe every hereditary leader will become a war criminal, but you do state - "when you tolerate monarchy in any context, you're also implicitly tolerating the whole crooked principle of hereditary leadership, and all of its very obvious side-effects" which is a pretty clear declaration of what you think of we monarchists. Not open for debate, just a subject of your judgment.

So, I'm a monarchist and judge me if you please. I suspect I'll still think you can shove your judgmental bullshit up your ass though.

[Quantum_Wizard]

jeff744 wrote:

DanSC wrote:

jeff744 wrote:

Not true, hereditary leadership for monarchs in Europe was a very foreign concept for a very long time, only when the Romans pushed the idea on them did it start to take.

True for the Roman Empire, but the Roman Republic was born out of a rebellion against a monarchy.

And yet they maintained the ability to appoint a person with the power of a monarch, they merely lacked the ability to pass it on to their children. Their monarchy was also an example of exactly how not to rule a nation.

But a dictator was only meant to be chosen during an emergency (such as a war) and could only be chosen for a half a year at a time and the same person couldn't be chosen for more than one consecutive term.

At any rate, JJ's rants against seem to always focus on hereditary monarchy. I don't think we really know for sure what he thinks about e.g. elective monarchy.

[JJ]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

At any rate, JJ's rants against seem to always focus on hereditary monarchy. I don't think we really know for sure what he thinks about e.g. elective monarchy.

An elective monarchy isn't really a monarchy at all. I think we sometimes focus too much on these titles, like whether the head of state is called "king" or "president," instead of the more relevant factor of how he's chosen and how the regime is structured. Some political scientists would argue a country like Canada is a republic in practice but a monarchy in form, while North Korea is a monarchy in practice and a republic in form.

Gunnair wrote:

You may not, as you say, believe every hereditary leader will become a war criminal, but you do state - "when you tolerate monarchy in any context, you're also implicitly tolerating the whole crooked principle of hereditary leadership, and all of its very obvious side-effects" which is a pretty clear declaration of what you think of we monarchists. Not open for debate, just a subject of your judgment.

My view is that monarchism is a philosophy — which I don't think is an unfair characterization. And if one supports the philosophical principle that hereditary succession is a useful and legitimate way of choosing one nation's head of state, I think the onus is on that same person to explain why that principle is incorrect to use for other nations, or in other contexts. Or maybe monarchists think it's not incorrect at all, who knows.