|Posted by The Black Baron on January 20, 2012 at 5:55 PM|
Argument: Why should someone become head of state merely due to accident of birth ?
This an argument used most often of advocates of democratic-republicanism in the commonwealth, so we will address it from such a perspective. It is worth pointing that even in "enlightened and progressive" democratic republics, major political decisions are decided by people who no other qualification other than " accident of birth," I am speaking of course, about the average voter. In most democratic countries, one does not have to pass any sort of exam on political science or even ever have to hold a political position, in order to vote. Can one honestly argue against the notion that in a democratic society, the only qualification one needs in order to cast a ballot is the mere virtue of existence, an " accident of birth" if you will. Some may point out that one must also be a citizen of that nation and be a certain age, but then again these too are "accidents of birth." Can the fact that one was born in a certain geographic location and born on a certain date be described as much more than an "accident?" It certainly is not enough to be considered qualified to play a role in government, yet at the very same time these are the only credentials necessary in order vote, or even run for head of state, in a democratic state. At least in monarchial states, the heir to the throne often receives a rigorous education and has spent at least some time holding a position in government or the military. These are certainly far more than impressive accreditations than the "average Joe" who casts his or her ballot on election day. So from a meritocratic aspect at least, I think it is self evident that a monarchy is superior. A monarch can bring up his/her knowledge of politics or the experience that he/she gained while holding a position of power as an argument on why they should be head of state, the average voter cannot fall back on such a defense. He can only defend his right to vote by referencing some abstract concept such as "human rights," which might I mention, they gain only through having the mere fortunate by being born to a specific species by "accident." So one cannot attack monarchy for being based on "accident of birth," and support democratic republicanism as an alternative. For they both are based on "accident of birth," one is merely slightly broader than the other.
- Black Baron
Categories: Monarchist Politics