The abolition or absence of a particular exclusivist institution or
practise does not
mean that the social system in question has become or is
neutral and
inclusive, even not in the field
which used to be pervaded by that manifestation of
exclusivism.
There may be many exclusivist institutions or practises left which result
in the same degree or in an even greater degree of inequality
than in a system which still displays the particular form of
exclusivity or exclusion.
However, an entirely neutral-inclusive social
system will be free from all exclusivist elements of culture, and any
abolition of a remaining exclusivism will thus contribute towards the
establishment of
neutral-inclusivity.
Altho significant
exclusivist elements may themselves be the result of a historical
development, the perpetuation of the existence of these elements is
something present-day people are responsible for.
And whereas individual people have the
extrinsic right to perpetuate
exclusivist systems which only concern themselves, the state does not have
the right to perpetuate such systems, particularly not when they involve
everyone and particularly not when they comprise several exclusivisms at
once.
One exclusivist state institution, remnant of medieval feudalism,
is the monarchical system. Its alternative, a republic,
is a nonmonarchy which need not per se be less exclusivistic in
every respect. Yet, as a monarchy a polity is exclusivistic
and as a republic (a 'res publica', that is, a 'public thing'
or 'commonwealth') it is not. While republics can be totally
nondiscriminatory, in monarchical systems the discriminatory
nature is inherent. It could be said that republic stands to
monarchy as coherence stands to incoherence.
Only a
coherent theory can reveal the
truth —a set of true propositions must be coherent—, but a
particular coherent theory may reveal less of the truth than a particular
incoherent one.
Similarly, the best polity is a republic —an inclusive and
egalitarian polity can solely be republican—, but a particular (type
of) republic could, on the whole, be worse than a particular (type of)
monarchy.
Monarchical fanaticists often try to exploit this by pointing at certain
republican systems or countries and by calling attention to all
their defects, not realizing that such reasoning is as preposterous
as that of someone arguing in favor of incoherence, because there do exist
coherent theories which contain more falsehoods than other, incoherent
ones.
If such an argument proves anything at all, it is that the one type of
republic is better than the other type of republic.
What the minions of monarchism tend to conveniently forget is that the
essential difference between a kingdom, empire, principality or other sort
of monarchy and a republic is that in the former kind of political system
the office of chief of state and possibly certain other state positions
(among which even that of head of government at the same time) are
by law reserved for the members of one chosen family or narrow,
elitist circle of families, whereas this is not the case in a republic.
This inequality before or in the law is often further informally
supplemented by the monarch's own nepotism or 'their' government's
familial exclusivism.
(Not to mention the favors for the cronies of the Crown.)
Thus state offices or positions in a country with royal apartheid are not
open to all but entirely or partially based on biological-materialist relationship rather than on
personal capacity or merit.
(A perfect illustration of the analogy between monarchy and
incoherence is that also theorists of 'justice' and so-called 'democratic' politicians in monarchist
countries will say that 'state positions and offices should be open to
all', while at the same time collaborating with, if not enthusiastically
defending, the monarchical order.
Another illustration is that ethical theorists who have attacked
utilitarianism for its not taking justice into account, have —at
least in the past— never attacked the unalloyed utilitarian
arguments used to 'justify' the same monarchical order.
It seems, again, that it is ultimately ideology which determines what the
ethical or democratic theorist will attack or defend, and that
'er theory is
usually only to provide
'im
with extra, more explicit reasons for a position
'e has already taken.)
In theory, monarchism is no more than
infrafactorial familial state
exclusivism; in practise, it is a
plural exclusivism.
It allows people to indulge in, or even requires them to support, all or
most of the following manifestations of exclusivity and exclusion:
- generative familial
exclusivism (the monarch has become head of state not because of
'er personal capacities or merits but by virtue of 'er ancestry; rather
than being made on the basis of skin color, the irrelevant distinction is
made on the basis of a much narrower criterion: that of blood color in an
aristocratic sense)
- familial exclusivism, both physical and nonphysical
(members of the family of the monarch have certain privileges
solely on the basis of their belonging to this family;
the monarch and possibly other members of 'er family do not have to pay
taxes on their more or less excessive state and other incomes, on their
property, for example, when aquired by inheritance, and on their
business transactions, altho they usually belong to the richest families
in the country)
- sexual exclusivism (royal heir lines are sexist: while the
basic rule is that the first child will succeed the reigning monarch,
daughters follow in line behind sons even when older —this brand
of sexism may have been abandoned in an attempt to 'modernize' the
system—; whereas the wife of a reigning king is styled 'Queen',
the husband of a reigning queen is not styled "King")
- marriage-centered exclusivism
(children of the monarch born out of wedlock do not have the same legal
rights as those born in wedlock: consanguinity turns out to be a
necessary but not a sufficient criterion)
- title-based exclusivism, both hereditary and nonhereditary
(while other citizens are called by their forenames and/or
surnames, the members of the monarch's family are tricked up with
officially sanctioned exclusive titles; it is a custom that the monarch
bestows other fancy titles upon members of the higher classes of
society leaving the lower classes with no or inferior titles;
these titles may be only or largely given out on the basis of
personal connections and ideological devotion, rather than desert)
- class-based exclusivism
(the 'royal', 'imperial' or otherwise chosen family or group of families
belong traditionally to the upper-class or the
wealthy, propertied class of society; members of other classes have no
chance to ever represent the whole society at the state's upper
level)
- ethnical or racial exclusivism (the chosen family belongs to
one particular ethnic group or race; people of other descent or with a
different skin color have no chance to ever represent the whole society
at the state's upper level)
- ideological, that is,
religious,
theocentrist or monotheist
exclusivism (the
denominational convictions of
the monarch, or even of a member of 'er family, are not 'er private
business: 'e is symbolic head of the state religion or symbolizes the
country's real or feigned belief in the main dogmas of the creed which
used to be the state religion; a particular religion, monotheism in
general or religion in general thus enjoys an exclusive status; the
intimate connection between monarchy and religion becomes very
conspicuous when a word such as king is employed both for the
doxastic supreme being named
"God" and for a worldly head of state: in the sense of leader of our
community of believers 'God' is a 'King' and the 'King' or Emperor
is (a) 'God' himself, or else a 'King by the grace of God')
If the monarchy is 'merely' a symbol, it is indeed the
supreme symbol of exclusivism!
Some of the forms of exclusivism monarchists commit themselves to may also
be found in a republican system (especially in a country which is a de
jure republic but a de facto monarchy), yet none of these exclusivisms is
inherent in the republican system as such.
Many republics, for instance, yield or yielded to classism, ethnocentrism
and/or state
religionism too, but other republics
do or did without these manifestations of exclusivity and exclusion (and
all of them should).
Furthermore, it has to be noted that the exclusivisms
which characterize monarchical systems are liable to be found
throughout the whole society in question. The monarchy may have
originally come into being by virtue of an exclusivist attitude,
having become an established institution it perpetuates this
very attitude.
It goes without saying that the monarchist ideology is entirely
incompatible with the principles of
the DNI.
Whether or not it is claimed to be 'only symbolical' (which it never is),
the authoritarian and exclusivist state system it advocates offends first
of all against (the spirit of)
the right to personhood and
the norm of inclusivity.
The monarchist tradition is not less incompatible with
the norm of neutrality, particularly
the subnorms of interpersonal equality and
nanhonore.
The personality cult in which a monarch and 'er family are worshiped and
idolized is a gross violation of the latter subnorm (a violation which
—it must be added— can also be found in some republics with
respect to the president and 'er family).
Moreover, such a cult is inimical to truth, since monarchies are notorious
for hushing up royal affairs which democratically elected politicians
would never have been allowed to survive.
Neither truth nor relevance have ever been served by the obsequiousness or
smarminess of subjects loyal to a monarchist cause.
The monarchist enterprise could, definitely symbolically, be made to agree
with the right to personhood if the followers of the family or families in
question maintained its or their members on private terms and did not try
to get the state involved in their familial, sexual, marital,
title-based, class-based, ethnical and ideological exclusivisms.
So long as monarchists do manage or endeavor to impose their obnoxious,
parasitic scheme on the whole of society nevertheless, they must be met
with recusancy — to say the least.
