REPUBLICS AND MONARCHS
By SALVADOR DE MADARIAGA THERE is general agreement in Europe and among exiled Europeans on the 'fact that Great Britain must take a leading part in the reconstruction of Europe. British trends of thought on European problems are thus of the utmost importance for the future of the Continent. There is a danger that precisely among the most enlightened and generous sections of public opinion inadequate views may prevail, owing ether to old-fashioned prejudices as to the relations between the form and the substance of government or to a tendency to assume that the European, of whatever nation is under consideration, is just Ian Englishman who speaks- a foreign language. The following observidons are put forward with all deference for the persons to whom they afe addressed and with all diffidence about the subject to which they refer. All facts of collective life have to be handled with due misgivings as to the very possibility of anyone understanding them- at all. Nothing is here- after said in a dogmatic spirit, even though for the sake of brevity it is shorn of all verbal. qualifications. The views expressed are only advanced in the hope that they may contribute to illustrate the d:fficulties of the problems before all Europeans.
I assume that a successful community is one which manages to evolve progress:vely but peacefully for the benefit of the whole nation, rich and poor, conservative and radical alike. The most successful communities in Europe • are monarchies: Great Britain, the three Scandinav:an countries, Holland. Belgium a border case. This cannot be due to an inherent superiority of the monarchical system, since some of the most successful communities in Europe are also republics ; for instance, Sw:tzerland. France a border case. Nearly all successful communities are in the North of Europe, or, to refer once to European peoples outside Europe, are of North European stock. That the above observation refers to stock, and not to climate or to latitude, is proved by Eire, which cannot be considered as successful within the meaning of the term as defined above. (There are, moreover, complex considerations of mutual influence between the English and the Irish which make it necessary to leave the Irish case altogether out of the argument) Unsuccessful communities are nearly all' of Southern or South- Eastern stock., These unsuccessful communities have nearly all upset their monarchies. Th:s cannot be due to an inherent in-
feriority in the monarchical system, since these unsuccessful com- munities have also upset their republics. On the whole, in the unsuccessful part of Europe, republics have been even less stable and less creative than monarchies—bad though the monarchies were.
The underlying reason for all these facts will not be found in the so-called backwardness or lack of education of the Southern peoples. Backwardness is a vague word, without much meaning outside its technological context. Lack of education is often exaggerated, and overlooks the fact that, for reasons which may appear hereafter, these South-Eastern peoples stand in less need of education than the Northerners. The reason for the differences in political success must be sought in more permanent features. The image of the road of political progress, along which some nations would have advanced further than others is deceptive. There is no such road, there is no such progress, at least not a road and a progress common to all nations and measurable for all nations alike by the same milestones.
The underlying reason for all these facts is neither political nor historical nor yet economic. All these aspects are consequences of the true reason of the facts they are supposed to explain. The true reason is psychological. It is embedded in the national character. As one moves in Europe from North to South and from West to East the human type gradually changes (granted a number of bumps, for after all we are dealing with Nature) from one ruled mostly by ethical, social and objective 'impulses to one ruled mostly by aesthetical, individual and subjective impulses. In the West. and the North most sentences begin with "This . . ." ; in the South and the East with "I . . ." In the North and the West people are mostly interested in things ; in the South and the East in persons.
There is an obvious link between the ethical-social-objective type and the Republican spirit (Res, the thing ); just as, of course, between the aesthetical-individual-subjective type and the monarchist spirit. Hence this paradox: monarchies are only successful with republican peoples. The paradox is less violent if it be borne in mind that republics are also successful only with republican peoples. Hence also this paradox: monarchies always fail with monarchist peoples, the reason being that among monarchist peoples every man wants to be a monarch. For the same reason republics are also bound to fail with monarchist peoples, and even more so than monarchies. This was observed to be the case in Southern Europe in our remarks above.
It follows that in the South and East of Europe monarchies fail because the people (including, the monarch) are not republican enough. Their parties become men-parties., i.e., monarchies. Hence in the South and East of Europe, Socialists, Republicans, Liberals, &c., soon become So-and-so-ists. The apparent exceptions confirm the rule: the Catholics are all monarchists of the Pope and the Communists are all monarchists of Stalin. Therefore in the South and East of Europe monarchies are bound to be failures ; but republics are bound to be even worse failures. Furthermore, in the South and East republican movements are apt to be attempts at putting a particular leader on the throne of power. .Hence the existence of an automatically designated monarch, in so far as it discourages such attempts, tends to impart to the nation as much stability as its national character can absorb.
Finally, subjective-aesthetical-individual peoples tend instinctively to be governed from above. Their weakness in republican and social tendencies starves the body politic of all functions and institutions other than those for which the State assumes responsibility. It is a remarkable fact that while there is in these people a constant cry for more liberty, the liberty they already possess is hardly ever exploited to the full, as is the case in the Northern nations. The South and East is both more unruly and yet readier to admit instinctively that not only authority but initiative as well must come from the Government. For this reason the least unsuitable system for the South and East is the mon4rchist. It must provide an outlet for opinions, feelings and ambitions, i.e., it must be liberal and open-minded. But it must be, and it is expected to be, strong as well as imp
Previous page
