Monarchy Is the Best Form of Government

In most instances, many people have questioned whether monarchy is the best system of government in our contemporary societies or not. Just like Hobbes, many philosophers believe that monarchy is the best tool for governance that can maintain the cruel impulse of humanities. Hobbes believed that humans are equal and therefore they should have one leader with sovereign powers to control their diverse actions within the society. However, it is clear that there are abundant cases made in favor and in contradiction of having one sovereign being as the best form of government. In this regards, the main argument of this essay is that the most effective and best form of government, concerning monarchy, is dependent on the status of the country in which it is applied. The essay, therefore, depicts and explains cases made for the rule of one man and those against the monarchy government.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Cases Made For the Rule of the One

Notably, before discussing the pros and cons of monarchy, it is important to understand the foundation of Hobbes' argument, which is heavy, relies on the state of nature. In the state of nature, individuals invade for gain, for safety, and reputation (Hobbes, 57). In the state of nature, power is necessary for survival. It is basically a cycle of power, comprising of the bourgeoisie, proletarians, and working class individuals that oppress each other within the society. This fact depicts the reason as to why Hobbes argues that if people live without sovereign power, they will be subjected to a state of war. To clarify, the condition of war here is that there exists extensive conflict among the leaders and the correspondent followers (Hobbes 57). It is important to note that in the state of nature there is no assurance that hard work can result to positive feedback but rather a constant state of war between the followers and leaders which bears absolutely nothing at the long run (Hobbes 57-58). I know that the above concepts have delved deeply into the state of nature, but it is essential to understand Hobbes' argument. This state of nature is what Hobbes wants to avoid. Hobbes believes that government, in general, is always better going back to nature, even if the government is terrible one thing that both Locke, a famous proponent of liberalism, and Hobbes agree on is that there must be someone, or some people, to enforce laws or covenants.

Hobbes argues, in Leviathan, that monarchy is the best form of government mostly due to 6 main reasons. These reasons depict the cases that can be made for the rule of the one. The very first reason discussed is the idea of interests. For example, in a monarchy, private interest is the same as the public. The riches, power, and honor of a monarch arise purely from the riches, strength, and reputation of his subjects; for no king can be rich or glorious or secure if his subjects are poor or wretched. A wise monarch would keep his people well-nourished and well provided for, which is what state is interested in, and for the sake of his interest, which is his security and protection. It is harder with democracy or aristocracy since public prosperity often does less for the private fortune of someone who is corrupt or ambitious (87). For example, in an aristocracy, the people in power will look out for themselves, their friends, and their families only, this will make others, especially people who are not friends with people in the aristocracy or related to them, to retaliate by lying and doing treacherous actions to gain a private fortune. However, in a democracy, everyone will try to become more rich and powerful. Corrupt people will do anything to gain power and money. If there is one sovereign, it is easier for people to work hard to become richer as they all need to please this one person. In a democracy or aristocracy, it is harder to please everyone. This showcase the reasons as to why most monarchy governments are in a stable economy ranging from the working class and leaders as well.

Another case that Hobbes emphasizes is how "a monarch decides who will advise him" and that such a monarch has the privilege of listening to anyone who is knowledgeable about the matter in question which can be done in secrecy as well. However, in an assembly, it will be really hard to bring someone knowledgeable from the outside. It is also hard to keep a secret when a lot of people know about it. The next point Hobbes brings up is the idea of a monarch's resolution not being subject to inconstancy as much as an assembly's. The example that Hobbes provides is self-explanatory.

He indicated that in a monarchy, the king would make resolutions, and it will happen. If the king later decides to change it, he can. When it comes to an assembly, people will argue over one resolution and slow down changes. People might not be present for voting and decide to do a revote the next day, or people might disagree with each other, and the resolution can take a lot longer to be agreed upon. In this aspect, one can argue that reaching a constructive decision in assemblies is slow and hectic. As a result, it seems to be more convenient to create resolutions when there is only one sovereign, and that is a monarchy system of governance. Conversely, there is likely hood that disagreement within an assembly can occur whereas, in a monarchy, there is no disagreement because a monarch cannot "disagree with himself out of envy or self-interest" as an assembly could (Hobbes, 87). The above aspect indicates transparency in decision making by only involving knowledgeable individuals with a vision of what is expected of a nation. Most importantly, Hobbes does discuss disadvantages as well from monarchies. For instance, how powerful a monarch is and how she or he can take what they want from anyone and hand it to someone they favor. However, Hobbes counters this by stating that this could also occur within an aristocracy or a democracy, however, their power lies in hurting others rather than helping, which may be seen as worse than monarchies. For in a monarchy, there is the possibility of people being helped, while in a democracy, the existence of competition leads to people hurting each other and stopping each other for personal gains and jealousy. The last point and case that Hobbes discusses the rule of one is the idea of inheritance. A child can inherit the sovereignty, and although the previous monarch should have set guardians in case of such an event, it could still lead to problems.

However, Hobbes expresses that if such an incident occurs where a child has sovereignty and that people "startup and disturb the public peace, it should be attributed not to the form of monarchy, but the subject's ambition and ignorance of their duty" (Hobbes, 88). True, this may seem like a disadvantage, but in a way it is still better than a democracy or aristocracy, Hobbes argues. The child will eventually grow up, or another monarch will take his place, however, in a democracy or aristocracy, the assembly "lacks the freedom to disagree with the advice of the majority, whether it is good or bad" which is a privilege that a monarch has (Hobbes, 88). By comparing the two sides, it is clear that monarchy is the best system of government.

Cases Made Against the Monarchy

Many opponents disagree with monarchy being the best form of government. Such critiques made cases against one-man rule. For instance, John Locke argued that monarchy gives too much power to the sovereign. Locke believes that citizens are in a state of nature concerning the monarch because the monarch is above the law. It is true that to remain out of the state of nature, there must be somebody powerful enough to keep covenants between people, but in this case, no one can keep a covenant with a monarch because his sovereignty allows him to be more powerful than the covenant. There is also the idea that Locke brings out of punishing wrongdoers (Locke and Macpherson, 23). If a king commits a crime in Hobbes' type of government, then he cannot be punished as he is above the law. This makes it very unreasonable and absurdly powerful. The king can do whatever he wants and get away with it at their own will. If such acts do occur, then it is tyranny and affects the general public at large. Such actions can also boost corruption in monarchy governments owing to the fact that no legal mandate can be taken against the monarch.

Thomas Christiano, a rational philosopher, also brings up positive points for democracy and how it is better as compared to the monarchy. The first point that he makes is that democracy is better with equality because it embodies respect more than any other institution. In democracy, everyone has a say and a vote for what they believe in, and each vote counts the same as the next, which means equality (Christiano, 74). In this regard, everyone has an equal say. Additionally, in democratic governance, everyone's judgment must be taken seriously unlike the monarchy aspect where judgment is based on one man's decision. It is also vital to note that whereas in a monarchy, the king can ignore his people, in democracy, each must be heard. Lastly, is the idea that democracy is the most procedurally just. This is mainly due to the idea that people have a say and that everyone goes through a specific process, whereas in a monarchy, the king listens to who he wants to, and he can choose to listen to friends before citizens or the general public. This aspect relates to how certain critical decisions affecting the development of a nation can be reached. Ideally, in democracy the majority has a say and this benefits a large population of the nation.

In conclusion, there is a need to depict the correct system of governance concerning the monarchy. Ideally, monarchy is the best form of government because of the considerations that other considerations counter both Locke and Christiano advance. For example, Locke's idea regarding the fact that monarch is too powerful is has been counteracted by the proponents of a monarchial system of leadership. For example, the idea of no one having enough power to ensure that covenants are made is better, because, without it, society would go back to the state of nature. There needs to be someone powerful enough to enforce contracts and covenants. The second argument, which was presented by Christiano, is the idea of equality. Let us think about the advantages and disadvantages of equality in society. The advantages are that people will have an equal say in what they desire, which is great. However, voting can cause so many problems within society. For example, what if people are too busy to vote on a certain day? What if people are not knowledgeable about the topic being discussed? What if there needs to be a quick decision-making process? There is also the idea of time lag accompanied by voting. If a nation is in danger of an attack and requires a quick reaction, the democratic countries will need to vote on what course of action to do next which could put them in a higher risk, whereas the monarch's nation would only need to wait on the monarch's answer. Also, the idea of equality would be nice if everyone was knowledgeable about how to counter the threat, but it is rarely going to be so.

Conversely, a monarch is more knowledgeable about such issues, and his panel of well-informed mentors can easily aid in helping him decide on the best course of action to be taken. This shows that monarchy is a better form of government because it can respond quicker than in democracies. In monarchy more knowledgeable people will be asked to make decisions, especially when it comes down to the nation's security, and it is better than going back to the state of nature since monarchs have enough sovereign power to ensure...