The Merits of Kingship

The demise of Moamar Qadaffi reminds us that there are not many kings left on earth. A form of government which was so obviously right as to be unworthy of debate for most of human history is now largely considered to be an anachronistic absurdity.

Qadaffi did not call himself a "king", of course; his hatred for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia dictated that he refuse that title, as did the fact that he gained power at the ripe age of 27 by overthrowing King Idris of Lybia.

But a king he was, of course, made evident by his cult of personality and the planned succession of his sons. Most of the world today sees that model of government as unacceptable. This is a profound revolution in human thought and organization.

Kingship relies on two irreducible assumptions, whatever form it comes in. One assumption is that decisions are best made by one person, as debate tends to dilute and delay any effective action. The second assumption is that when the king dies, the only way to avoid bloodshed and chaos is to have an obvious successor predetermined.

These assumptions actually work sometimes, but when they don't chaos and war is almost assured.

The first assumption is that power is most effectively wielded by one person. And that is true. But the problem is that "power" is a value-neutral thing; it could be good, but it could just as easily be awful.

When one person has unlimited power, we are all at the mercy of that person. If that person has a good idea, we are in luck. But if that person has a bad idea, there is nothing to ward of that idea.

When power is shared, good ideas are watered down and delayed. And that is incredibly frustrating. But more importantly, awful ideas are watered down and delayed as well. And for that, we should all thank God.

The second assumption is that inherited power prevents chaos and war. Again, sometimes this works. But even when it does work, there is absolutely no reason to think that the best person for the job just happened to have been born to the King.

Henry VIII is an interesting example. His obvious heir was his son, who was only 9. The fact that making a 9-year old King was "obvious" is but one example of how absurd this system is, especially when we consider that the 9-year old boy had a 31-year old sister when he became king.

Henry's 9-year old son became the ruler instead of his 31-year old daughter. So in addition to the absurdity of the idea of inherent and divine right and might, we have the absurdity of sexism to the point where we choose a 9-year old instead of a 31-year old solely by virtue of what's in their pants.

Henry's 9-year old son was king for 5 years. Then he died. The daughter then took over for 5 years. She died, known as Bloody Mary. So who came next? Was there a search for educated and empathetic people? Of course not.

Next in line was Elizabeth. Elizabeth's mother, Anne Boleyn, had been declared (literally) an incestuous witch and had her head cut off, despite the fact that she was the Queen of England. Yet her daughter became queen and remained queen for half a century.

So the system failed in England. They had a female ruler for a half-century, born to a witch, no less. According to their worldview, that would be like us having a......well, having a 9-year old boy be our president. But their system allowed them no other choice.

There is still great nostalgia and romance associated with kingship. (Our obsession with the recent "royal" wedding in England serves as proof). But we have also witnessed kingship, as an idea, being utterly eviscerated for the past century.

There are very few kings left. Some are not called "king". (Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il) Some are. The good news is that they are few and far between. The bad news is that they are occasionally necessary.

But the impossible part of it is that nobody can identify the necessary conditions for a king except for....a king. And a king always wants to be king.