Why Monarchism

Throughout history, political thinkers have debated the best means of organizing human association so as to secure peace, justice, and prosperity. Modern liberal democracies, while often celebrated as vehicles of popular self-government, have repeatedly demonstrated structural weaknesses: short electoral cycles that prioritize pandering over prudence, unstable majorities that compromise rights for short-term gains, and diffuse accountability that diffuses responsibility. Even distinguished critics of democracy, from James Bovard to Hans-Hermann Hoppe, have shown that majority rule can mask coercion as legitimacy and incentivize present-oriented decision-making at the expense of long-term liberty.

Against this backdrop, monarchism offers a compelling alternative, not as a retreat into absolutism or mythical divine right, but as a framework for stable, long-term, and rights-respecting governance.

1. Long Horizons, Stable Authority

Monarchs typically reign across decades, unlike elected officials whose authority resets every few years. This longevity aligns the incentives of rulers with the flourishing of the polity as a whole, rather than with short electoral cycles. Longer time horizons encourage investment in stable institutions, property rights, and prudent administration rather than the perpetual churn of electoral politics. Research suggests that monarchies — particularly constitutional ones — often score well on indicators of economic stability and the protection of property rights, translating into higher standards of living and lower variance in institutional quality compared with many republics.

2. A Check on Majoritarianism

Even in constitutional monarchies, the monarch can be institutionally positioned to act as a non-partisan restraint on democratic overreach. By existing outside the factional battles of electoral politics, the monarch can provide continuity and a measure of stability when democratic institutions face crises of legitimacy or confidence. This non-democratic element does not confer moral authority but instead serves as an institutional check against factionalism and demagoguery.

3. Continuity of Identity and Tradition

Monarchism anchors political authority in continuity rather than contestation. Symbolic and ceremonial elements of monarchy can unify diverse populations and provide a repository of shared heritage. This cultural continuity fosters a sense of belonging that is not reducible to shifting majorities or ephemeral opinion polls — an important psychological underpinning of social cohesion.

4. Incentive Structures and Incentive Alignment

Unlike elected politicians, whose tenure is limited and often disconnected from the long-term welfare of the state, monarchs have a personal and dynastic interest in preserving the realm they oversee. This dynamic can create incentives that are at least less antithetical to long-term stewardship than those driven by perpetual reelection pressures. It is an insight articulated in libertarian and political economy contexts: the institutional design of monarchy can reduce the “present-orientedness” of rulers and produce better protection of foundational norms such as property and contract.

5. Not All Monarchies Are the Same

It is crucial to distinguish between absolute monarchy — where unchecked power can (and historically has) led to tyranny — and constitutional monarchy, where codified limits subject even the monarch to law. Many modern monarchies operate under constitutional frameworks that balance traditional continuity with legal restraint, offering a hybrid that avoids both democratic volatility and autocratic arbitrariness.

6. Conclusion

Monarchism, properly conceived, is not a nostalgic defence of birthright privilege or ineffable authority. Rather, it is an institutional argument for longer time horizons, continuity of governance, stability of law, and resistant buffers against the pathologies of electoral factionalism. Far from being an outdated relic, a constitutional monarchy (or a restrained hereditary system) can be a serious contender in the modern search for political orders that protect liberty and foster the common good.

Economics:

 1) “...we found quantitatively meaningful evidence that monarchies outperform republics when it comes to protecting property rights, which translates into higher GDP per capita. We found support for each of our hypotheses when comparing all monarchies to all republics.”

 2) "This paper explores the effects of monarchy on economic institutional quality and provides evidence that monarchies are associated with significantly better institutions."

 3) "Albeit lack of significance, the ‘mean GDP’ is slightly higher for monarchy countries than in republic countries. Similarly, the variance statistic (a measure of instability) is lower for constitutional monarchies and higher for republics, indicating that constitutional monarchies appear more economically stable than republic countries."

4) "It is thus fair to conclude that in the contemporary world, after centuries of framing the role of the sovereign in constitutional terms, and especially in the case of the European democratic-constitutional monarchies, people do better economically under monarchies than under republics, whether they are democratic or not."

 

Opinions:

1) Libertarian perspectives

 a) "Constitutional monarchy cannot solve all problems of government; nothing can. But it can help. Besides lesser arguments, two main ones recommend it. First, its very existence is a reminder that democracy is not the sort of thing of which more is necessarily better; it can help promote balanced thinking. Second, by contributing continuity, diluting democracy while supporting a healthy element of it, and furthering the separation of government powers, monarchy can help protect personal liberty."

 b) "The idea of monarchy is understandably abhorrent to many Americans. But it's also true that a constitutional monarchy can provide a better check on political power than constitutional democracy."

 c) “I propose...a revision of the prevailing view of traditional hereditary monarchies and provide...an uncharacteristically favorable interpretation of monarchy and the monarchical experience. In short, monarchical government is...privately owned government, which in turn is explained as promoting future-orientedness and a concern for capital values and economic calculation by the government. Democratic government is...publicly owned government, which is explained as leading to present-orientedness and a disregard or neglect of capital values in government rulers, and the transition from monarchy to democracy is interpreted accordingly as civilizational decline. If one must have a state...then it is economically and ethically advantageous to choose monarchy over democracy." 

 

2) Conservative perspectives

 a) "Monarchy is, most simply, the rule of law and the spirit of a people incarnate. It’s the avatar of a nation, the vessel for its ancient spirit. Our Founders decided to handle the spirit only, to do away with the body and accept what Hannan calls the most sublime form of English common law. But it seems this ideal is so sublime as to be imperceptible: as soon as it appeared, it was gone. So often we need that intermediary, someone to devote himself entirely to what we cannot do casually. Order, law, liberty, dignity, beauty—the whole organism of tradition—none of these are best served by television debates and twelve hours of voting once every couple of years. They must have their constant minister. Which is why, despite all time and chance and popular opinion, I can’t help but confess to being a convinced Monarchist."

 b) "However outdated and irrelevant monarchy may appear to many, it tends to instil in the general public a healthy respect for continuity. A head of state performs a symbolic function, staying out of controversy and speaking for the nation when it seems necessary and proper. It may be prudent to distinguish this role from that of a battle­scarred, elected leader of government. Perhaps those who happen to hold political power should not also enjoy the historical glory. Unlike Rousseau and the French Revolutionaries, Burke believed that there should be many sources of authority, not only one, and that monarchy could be one of them. Indeed, some of the freest and stablest regimes in Europe are monarchies"

 c) "Most people asked the title question to-day would doubtless contemptuously answer “no!” Some few – very few in these United States – might answer in the affirmative. But how well do either really understand what they are denying or assenting to?"

 d) "Four reasons to become a monarchist 

    1. Monarchies are pro-people. Monarchies represent all, while politicians are necessarily partisan and divisive. 

    2. Monarchical tyranny is more easily corrected.

    3. Monarchs are born to rule instead of merely happening to rule. 

    4. For the Christian, Monarchy best represents the inherent hierarchy in the world."

 

 3) Religious perspectives

 a) "To be a monarchist is not to pine away for some lost paradisiacal past, because, first, that past never existed; and second, monarchy IS modern. The whole point of the scholarship on monarchy is that it has been everywhere and in all times. That includes today. Nor should we dichotomize monarchy and democracy. Democracy has always been a part of monarchical systems on some level. Thus the proper dichotomy is between monarchy and republics. But all this means that we should not be seduced into thinking that our republic, any republic, can be anything more than what it is (a pluralistic and secular polity with no place for God in the public sphere), or that monarchy can be anything less than it is (a sacral state that rests on tsar, Church, and God)."

 b) "We are convinced that the re-establishment of constitutional parliamentary monarchy would be the perfect way to connect traditional, centuries-old values of our people and its glorious past with the modern era. Constitutional Monarchy provides unity, stability and continuity. It is also the guarantor of democracy and human rights. The break-up with tradition of monarchy had never had good effects on a single nation, especially not ours. The states that have incorporated their own traditions in the modern era are the most developed countries in the world today, and 7 out of 10 are monarchies."

 c) "Well, firstly I am a Monarchist in my bones. I love the traditions, the ceremony and the kingliness of the whole affair. In addition, you will find that it is not uncommon for serious Libertarians to advocate for Monarchy as the most efficient and practical method of ensuring a just state."

 

4) Other perspectives

  a) "...the fervor for monarchy in the new democracies is real. Cynics dismiss it as silly, nostalgic romanticism, but could it instead be an altogether rational manifestation of the universal desire to live well and be governed well? Although the royal road has generally been bypassed in the twentieth century, might it be the surest route to societal well-being and good government in the new millennium?"

 b) "But the skeptics are wrong. Constitutional monarchy is the best system of government known to man, and it would be a terrible shame [to] abandoned it."

 c) "Constitutional monarchy is the best form of government that humanity has yet tried. It has yielded rich, healthy nations whose regime transitions are almost always due to elections and whose heads of state are capable of being truly apolitical."

 d) "Monarchies have an extremely valuable role to play, even in the 21st century. If anything their number should be added to rather than subtracted from. To understand why, it is important to consider the merits of monarchy objectively without resorting to the tautology that countries ought to be democracies because they ought to be democracies."