[Arthur Gordon Pym]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

José Antonio Primo de Rivera, who was an Aristocrat himself, spoke of the Monarchy as an institution gloriously deceased. I don't even agree with him there, since he refered to the end of the reign of Alfonso XIII. It would have been more appropriate if he had refered to the end of the Hispanic Monarcs, after which foreign interests tainted the Spains.

However, it is also true that monarchy is a more natural system to man than others. And in fact other political systems often seek to perpetuate themselves in a similar fashion to that of monarchies.

One problem with monarchy can be explained with what you tell about Dr. Georgiev. He is 60 years old and I assume that he doesn't find anyone who can relief him. Therefore, there is no continuity.

Well, if I think twice about it, you may be right in a certain, let's say, a bit cynical sense. There is some strange propensity to monarchical rule in the mankind. Whatever civilization you consider, always much more monarchies will be found than republics. Rome before Augustus, (some)Greek city-states, Venice, Genoa, Dubrovnik, Novgorod, some German Hanseatic towns - I cannot recall other republics in the pre-modern times. And these "republics" were quite different from what is understood under this term nowadays.

United States of America were the first republic (with the exception of the Cromwellian Commonwealth) in the modern sense. Many other states that wanted to be republics, imitated this source. Moreover, they were first to invent the office of the "president of the Republic." But if we look closer, what does "president" means? It is a caricature of the king. Aping the king is visible even in the way the president represents and embodies the sovereignity of a nation, in the similar ways kings had done in the past. President seems to be a democratically elected king...

So through this argumentation, we could come to the conclusion that every system of governance has a tendence to ape monarchy. However, I find something repulsive in the very notion of monarchy, because it somehow presupposes that the ruler is proprietor of a country, while the nation as such does not count. Having a divinely anointed master over a nation somehow seems to me as diametrically opposite to nationalism.

Again, I say, there is no perfect mode of governance, to me monarchy is one among others. I would favour it maybe over liberal democracy. Some countries which have monarchical traditions, why shouldn't they continue them? But it is questionable, once monarchy is abolished, if it is wise or even possible to renew it.

I would be in favour of a sort of authoritarian rule at any rate, not liberal democracy. Some personality which would embody national virtues and transcend political division, and would be chosen by the people on a plebiscite for an indetermined time to be in office. This would be maybe better than monarchy...