Agradates 1

NEW MONARCHY

By

Agradates

Approx. 7110 words

www.agradates.com

Agradates 2

New Monarchy

“The state in its constitution must permeate all relationships within the state. Napoleon, for

instance, wished to give the Spaniards a constitution a priori, but the project turned out badly

enough. A constitution is not just something manufactured; it is the work of centuries, it is the

Idea, the consciousness of rationality so far as that consciousness is developed in a particular

nation. No constitution, therefore, is just the creation of its subjects. What Napoleon gave to the

Spaniards was more rational than what they had before, and yet they recoiled from it as from

something alien, because they were not yet educated up to its level. []” (§ 274)

Constitutional monarchy, as outlined by the philosopher Georg Hegel, is the apex of the

rational state. Before understanding Hegel’s constitutional monarchy, one must first understand

his Dialectic. The Dialectic, like the Socratic Method of Inquiry, is a method of reasoning. It

presupposes that there is a greater truth that can be attained through the evolution of ideas,

through discourse or through their implementation and subsequent analysis.

The Dialectic, Phenomenology of Spirit, 1807, functions accordingly, if there are a few

people with multiple points of view, multiple ideas, they can arrive at a new idea by uniting their

different points of view and thus creating a Synthesis. It should be noted that Hegel is not the

originator of triadic dialectic, Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis. Dialectic is widely accepted as being

a form of exposition found in philosophy since at least the Middle Ages. For the sake of

continuity, this essay will refer to Hegel’s Dialectic as it, nevertheless, takes the correct form of

exposition in which one concept is developed out of and negates another successively.

Agradates 3

Hegel describes history as a struggle of ideas. An Idea would arise, a Thesis, and soon

after its emergence an opposing Idea would arise, an Antithesis. They collide and are destroyed.

This destruction is called the Synthesis. The Synthesis has aspects of both the Thesis and

Antithesis. The Synthesis is a destructive act because in order to create a new Idea, a new Thesis,

the previous ideas need to be eliminated; discarded to the realm of antiquation and/or

anachronism. Of course, this new Thesis will eventually create an Antithesis of its own, and

everything begins again.

It is believed that this dichotomy, that this struggle, is leading somewhere. Hegel

described this apex himself in his book Philosophy of Right. Hegel believes the apex of the

Dialectic is constitutional monarchy, “The development of the state to constitutional monarchy is

the achievement of the modern world, a world in which the substantial Idea has won the infinite

form [of subjectivity — see §144]. The history of this inner deepening of the world mind — or in

other words this free maturation in course of which the Idea, realising rationality in the external,

releases its moments (and they are only its moments) from itself as totalities, and just for that

reason still retains them in the ideal unity of the concept — the history of this genuine formation

of ethical life is the content of the whole course of world-history.” (Hegel, § 273).

According to Hegel, the rational state that ensures the sustained freedom of the individual

is fully realized in constitutional monarchy. Such a statement on its own would seem absurd to

many observers of contemporary political axioms, but a careful analysis of historical and

contemporary trends in republican systems, and the failures therein, would prove otherwise. To

begin with the contemporary axiom of republican opposition based constitutions as being a

superior principle of governance, one should note that the authoritarianism that is on the rise in

Agradates 4

the world today could not have come to fruition without the republic and the authority it

commands. The autocrats of today almost exclusively come to power through republican means

and, for Rousseauian reasons, maintain the republican designation thereafter.

Republicanism fails to prevent unequal power consolidations within the branches. The

modern constitution, as it stands, aims to place different institutions in opposition. This is to

counter the inherent ambitions that tend to manifest within institutions through their officials, a

point well considered in The Federalist Papers. Even though philosophers and political scientists

such as James Madison are correct in their understanding of human nature as being inherently

ambitious and self-serving, an opposition based orientation of the branches of government, as a

foundational principle, is fundamentally unsustainable because eventually there will be power

concessions by one branch to another.

There are many fine examples demonstrating the inherent weakness of republican

systems. Such examples include the so-called republics of Venezuela, Egypt, Russia, Belarus,

and Turkey. These dictators did not come to absolute power the old way, and increasingly

improbable way, of taking power through military means, but by being elected, consolidating

power, and then simply never leaving. Elections are simply a fashionable way to validate heads

of state and government. Today, the republic is seen as the purist manifestation of the General

Will, or simply the people’s Will, and this fact has not escaped the notice of today’s tyrants. It

should not be of any surprise that the republic has, ironically, become the favored state

designation for most authoritarian regimes.

Hegel’s constitutional monarchy offers the people the choice of who is to be their head of

the government while having a head of the state who is to be a permanent living embodiment of

Agradates 5

the nation as well as a guard against authoritarianism. This essay will prove constitutional

monarchy as the superior system of government for achieving a free and stable society opposed

to that of the republic whose foundational principle, the negative separation of powers, is not

only ineffectual but rather guarantees the rise of authoritarians as demonstrative in the

autocracies which are on the rise in the world today.

To better understand the contemporary political landscape, visiting a few key terms in

political science will be necessary. Such terms include, autocracy, authoritarianism, and

totalitarianism. Autocracy refers to absolute top down control of the society that stems from one

person, absolute monarchies and presidential dictatorships can be classified under this form of

rule. Authoritarianism refers to the citizen’s general absolute subordination to the state.

Totalitarianism takes it a step further by the state inserting its will directly into every aspect of

the citizen’s life; absolute control of public and private life. Now that the crucial terms have

defined, one can better understand the political landscape on which modern man operates and

perhaps discern the next rational step in global governance.

Modes of government do not exist in isolation but are a product of global ideological

movements. The republic is simply the latest shift in so-called progressive global governance,

and will not be the last. The 20th century is demonstrative of this fact. However, there was a

global trend even before fascism, communism, and republicanism. If nations were left to their

own internal development, constitutional monarchy would be the contemporary political axiom.

Constitutional monarchy was the next step in the Dialectic. It was only with the Great War and

the destruction of old Europe which thwarted this natural development. It was a sudden shift in

Agradates 6

the orientation of ancient nation states which led to the rise of the extremist and reactionary

forces that would further mar the world in the decades to come.

The spread of fascism and communism was an era of brutal ideological experimentation

onto itself so for chronological clarity let us look at the rise of authoritarianism after the fall of

Soviet Russia and see the track record of democracies in the aftermath of the democratic

capitalist enlightenment which stemmed from the United States. After the fall of the USSR, most

of the remnants of communism faded, in its place was the republic. There are many countries

which degenerated into autocracy from a republic but only a few key examples will be presented

in the following.

Russia

Russia trades one dictator for another, first monarchic, communistic, and now

presidential. For many in Russia, the fall of the Soviet Union was a time great confusion and

distress. Nevertheless, under their president, Boris Yeltsin, Russia had a blossoming democracy

and a miniscule but promising economy. The Russian Federation had elections, a president, a

free media, and global allies which shared its likeness. Once President Boris Yeltsin instated

Vladimir Putin as Foreign Minister, the aesthetic of Russian politics slowly changed. The

swearing in of Vladimir Putin, as consequence of the resignation of President Yeltsin, was a

turning point in Russia. One inch at a time, Russian democracy and freedoms faded into

absurdity. The change was marked with a slow consolidation of power by the Executive. The

powers consolidated were taken from the other branches. This was done by leveraging

departments under the Executive (law enforcement) as well as allying with interest groups such

as the ex-KGB addled Russian mafia and oligarch corporations which were formerly run by the

Agradates 7

state. The media, which are at this point run by the state, were very effective in stabilizing this

transition. The media continue to do well to secure the minds of the people.

Note: While speaking on Russia, it should be noted that a prosperous economy might not

need democracy or constitutional monarchy but it does need free markets. Russia has plenty of

natural resources, a high literacy rate, a capitalist system, and an industrious people, but they do

not have a protected free market. This is why their per capita GDP potential is yet to be fully

realized. The oligarchy that surrounds “President” Putin is a parasite on Russia and the reason for

the country’s economic woe. Russia’s land and successful companies are consolidated by Putin’s

inner circle. There is no incentive to succeed in a corrupt country. There is no guarantee that the

fruits of one’s labor will not be plucked by an envious onlooker. This was true in the Soviet Era

and it is true now. Augusto Pinochet ruled Chile with an iron fist but the El Ladrillo plan ensured

that people had jobs, the confidence to spend money, innovate, and start new businesses. If a

dictator, and company, would like to take money from the people they should do it through

taxes, not by directly inserting themselves into the economy by means of extortion, stealing land,

and absorbing private corporations. However, if this comport cannot be overcome, the dictator

should consider becoming an absolute monarch. At the very least, there is dignity in stating the

situation for what it is.

Belarus

The official powers of Belarus are divided into three parts, Executive, head of state, and

the Legislature. Legislative power is vested in the bicameral parliament, also known as the

National Assembly. The majority of Legislative work is done through the National Assembly but

the president can enact decrees which are equivalent to law and are absolute. The Executive

Agradates 8

belongs to the government which manifests through the prime minister, which is chosen by the

president. This is Belarus, but it was not always a dictatorship. On August 25, 1991, Stanislav

Shushkevich was the first leader of the republic. In his tenure, Shushkevich directed the country

away from Russia and their Soviet past. It was the election of Alexander Lukashenko which

ended all that. Lukashenko reintegrated Soviet styled bureaucracy and aesthetic. Of course,

anything trying to emulate the USSR will be likened to an autocracy by definition. It was in these

so-called reforms that the short live democracy in Belarus perished. Lukashenko is the absolute

ruler of Belarus unto to this very day.

Instead of Lukashenko letting the other branches of government be electable and therein

letting the will of the people manifest through their elected officials, the governing apparatus of

the nation is simply an extension of his own will. It is the charlatan equivalent of an absolute

monarchy. One can see why, simply from a practical point of view, this mode of governing is

entirely ineffectual especially in cultivating an economically productive people as well as a high

culture. Those in power have no need worry about such a thing when they do not answer to the

people. At least in the olden days, when nations were constantly trying to conquer each other,

there was an incentive for a nation’s leadership to have a competent populous. Now, all a dictator

and his sycophants need is to maintain their position. They do this by not being too tyrannical

and provide the people with propaganda, welfare, and visions of imaginary past glories. This is a

strategy that Russia has mastered. There are several more examples of democracies that have

turned to dictatorship, especially in Eurasia. Now, it is time to the gaze toward more recent

examples, beginning with Turkey.

Agradates 9

Turkey

With the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk came to power.

Like Shushkevich, Ataturk looked longingly at the success of the west. He was a great visionary

who believed that western values could be successfully implemented in an Islamic country, such

as Turkey. Ataturk moved the nation toward western principles through education,

secularization, and capitalism. But, it was how he accomplished this which laid the foundation

for other ideological figures to take power and shape Turkish destiny with equal, if not greater,

efficiency.

Ataturk had full control of Turkey and, even though his intentions were noble, laid the

foundation for less benevolent figures to come to power. Turkey is the closest west-Asian

country to Europe and their language is also Indo-European. Taking this into consideration,

Ataturk told his compatriots to consider themselves intrinsically westward and to act

accordingly. He did not realize that if he could control all the levers of power and declare Turkey

western, someone else can do the same but declare Turkey something else. This very thing

happened, the AKP (Justice and Development Party) deemed Turkey intrinsically Islamic and

that this fact should be the ultimate priority of the state.

The shift against the progressive values of Ataturk is fully realized in Turkey’s

prospective dictator, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Since Erdoğan came to power there has been

constant pressure on the media to fall in line with AKP interests, which is a party Erdoğan

founded and leads. One such example can be seen with Turkish journalist Mehmet Baransu.

Once beloved by AKP for his work in uncovering an alleged conspiracy against the government

involving the military in 2010, Baransu is now, like many journalists, under constant attack by

Agradates 10

government operatives. Having installed cameras for his protection, he found two of his

bodyguards, who were assigned to him by the government, attempting to upload incriminating

documents to his computer.

Pressure on the media is just one component in creating an autocracy from democracy.

Another component includes having control of the Executive branch. In 2017, a constitutional

referendum was held. Turkey barely approved the rewriting of the constitution. The referendum

was regarding a change to the Executive branch. Now, the majority of executive power will

belong to the president and eliminate the office of prime minister. This coincided with Erdogan’s

transition to the presidency from prime minister, an office he occupied from 2003 to 2014 until

his ascension to the presidency in 2014 to the present. This was a similar play to stay in power

that was used by Putin who went from Russia’s president to vice president and back to president

again.

For the Kremlin, this was a way to provide the people with plausible deniability that they

might not be living in a dictatorship. This, coupled with propaganda, can be very effective. So far

there are two parallels between the autocracy of Turkey and Russia, they leverage the

bureaucracy of their positions against other branches, they take control of the media, and they

manipulate the Executive to stay in power.

There is a common theme in the usage of a republic in creating authoritarian regimes.

The Executive partner’s with interest groups such as organized crime and corporations by either

striking an agreement with them or simply taking them out and replacing their function. After

this, the Executive place’s pressure on the other branches indirectly through these interest groups

Agradates 11

or simply manipulating the legislator to concede power in times of war or times of ambitious

projects that would allegedly require the Executive to have more autonomy.

All these failed countries have one thing in common, the Executive’s consolidation of

power by utilizing interest groups within and without of the government. There is the formula

that those that seek to create an authoritarian regime tend to follow. They will partner with

interest groups such as ideological coalitions and/or corporations. Once these are in place,

pressure will be placed on various local and federal government players. They will apply just

enough pressure to ensure that the average cog in the machine will not move against them. The

majority of the government is made up of such cogs who just want to do their job, so if the

prospective autocrat has gotten this far they have already won.

Authoritarian’s formula:

a = e + i + c

Key:

a = Authoritarian.

e = Executive branch, or an individual that makes overtures to control the Executive branch,

which would usually include controlling the police or the military. China and the Roman

Republic were authoritarian in the sense that the chairmen, or senators, had complete control of

the Executive in the sense that they decided who occupies it.

i = Interest groups. Groups such as media, organized crime, ideological movements, and

corporations.

Agradates 12

c = Citizenry. The citizenry is the everyday person. This is the citizen who has decided that this

authoritarian force has too much momentum and all that could come from interfering is a

fearsome reprisal.

It takes the control of all three to create an authoritarian. Of course, there are other factors

to consider in an authoritarian but these are all that are necessary to immediately end a republic.

The rise of authoritarian regimes is a product of the negative separation of powers, the only hope

of stopping this malignancy is by asserting a positive separation of powers in the form of

constitutional monarchy.

In § 272 of Philosophy of Right Hegel states, "Amongst current ideas, mention may be

made (in connection with § 269) of the necessity for a division of powers within the state. This

point is of the highest importance and, if taken in its true sense, may rightly be regarded as the

guarantee of public freedom. It is an idea, however, with which the very people who pretend to

talk out of their inspiration and love neither have, nor desire to have, any acquaintance, since it is

precisely there that the moment of rational determinacy lies. That is to say, the principle of the

division of powers contains the essential moment of difference, of rationality realised. But when

the abstract Understanding handles it, it reads into it the false doctrine of the absolute self-

subsistence of each of the powers against the others, and then one-sidedly interprets their relation

to each other as negative, as a mutual restriction. This view implies that the attitude adopted by

each power to the others is hostile and apprehensive, as if the others were evils, and that their

function is to oppose one another and as a result of this counterpoise to effect an equilibrium on

the whole, but never a living unity. It is only the inner self-determination of the concept, not any

other consideration, whether of purpose or advantage, that is the absolute source of the division

Agradates 13

of powers, and in virtue of this alone is the organisation of the state something inherently rational

and the image of eternal reason."

In this quote, Hegel begins by stating the importance of the separation of powers as a

means of guaranteeing public freedom. He then criticizes the negative view of this separation of

powers, a view which is well documented in James Madison’s essay Federalist 51 and made

manifest in most republics.

The negative separation of powers is a separation based on having the branches of

government be in opposition to one another. This is referred to as checks and balances, its aim is

to place the inherent ambitions of those in one branch of government against those in another.

Hegel believes that this “mutual restriction”, as stated above, presupposes that people are

inherently willing to undercut their colleagues and countrymen for the sake of personal gain.

Hegel rejects this view in favor of a positive separation. There is still a separation of powers but

these divided components can nevertheless be united. They can be united under the Crown (the

monarch), which is the oldest manifestation of the General Will.

Hegel is a part of the Rousseauian tradition so it is important to understand Rousseau’s

theory of the General Will. The General Will, as described in The Social Contract (Rousseau,

40), is a part of the Original Covenant. The Original Covenant is the foundation of civilization.

Civilization exists because people are willing to sacrifice their absolute freedom in exchange for

security. This covenant is made with the king and/or government, and all authority and power

that the state has stems from this agreement.

Agradates 14

Laws that are passed by those in power are designed to serve the best interests of the

people. In the people’s obedience to the law, they validate it. When the actions of those in power

no longer serve the people’s interests, and thus betray the covenant, the people have the right to

rebel. The people do not necessarily need to rebel violently when the covenant is violated.

Civilization is built on a Social Contract, a contract between the people and those in power.

When those in power violate the interests of the people, the people have the right to take back the

contract. Gene Sharp’s essay Dictatorship to Democracy is a guidebook to how one can take

back the power from the state. This essay, New Monarchy, proposes new terms for the contract,

once the people have taken power.

The Original Covenant, as Rousseau describes, acknowledges the monarch as the

manifestation of the General Will. However, in a society where the people can live under this

agreement with greater self-advocacy by actually electing their officials it would seem that

constitutional monarchy would have the monarch, the Crown, become a significantly lesser

manifestation of the people’s Will. Thus the monarch is repurposed, but for what? Before

providing the evidence for constitutional monarchy as being the total realization of the rational

state, as understood by Hegel and demonstrated by history, Hegel’s reproach to the negative

separation of powers must be addressed. Hegel is correct in his rejection of the negative

separation of powers, but he is wrong in how he came to his conclusion.

Hegel makes clear in the quote above that he finds the view taken by republicans such as

Madison as being predicated on a false assumption of human nature. In Federalist 51 Madison

states, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be

connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that

Agradates 15

such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government” (Madison, Federalist 51).

In this, Madison is absolutely correct. Man has a tendency to take what can be taken, a fact well

illustrated in history and articulated by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in his theory of Will

to Power, (Nietzsche, 101). Note that his theory of Will to Power should not be confused with his

book Will to Power which was corrupted and published after his death. Nietzsche’s Will to

Power, as it relates to living things, is a fundamental Will all life has to perpetuate.

The Will to Power is a fundamental principle of nature. It is cut from the same cloth as

Isaac Newton’s first law of motion. In The Principia, Newton states that an object that is in rest

shall remain in rest but if it is in motion it shall remain in motion, unless acted upon by an

external force. One example of the Will to Power as a foundational law of nature can be found in

how solar systems are established. A sun would die, the star dust particles would clump together

creating astral debris, larger debris will attract other astral material and thus become larger, the

larger this celestial body becomes the greater its gravitational power and its ability to consolidate

more matter increases, power begets power. This movement will continue until the object is

counteracted by an object of equal or greater power, and this equilibrium is the foundation of the

solar system. Note, this equilibrium does not mean that all the celestial bodies are equal, on the

contrary. If they are to be considered equal they are made equal and united under one, the sun. E

Pluribus Unum, this is the foundation of nature and of the rational state.

This Will to Power is not limited to inanimate objects but to living organisms as well.

Life is governed by the same celestial mechanical parameters. Once life begins, once it is in

motion, it will stay in motion. Once life was created, however that might have happened, it

immediately began to reproduce itself, proliferate itself. This Will to Life, this Will to Power, is

Agradates 16

carried in all species as a biological imperative. One can also see this Power Imperative mirrored

in ideologies fore ideology is a manifestation of man’s Will as man is a manifestation of the Will

to Power.

All organisms have a will to grow, to perpetuate, and to manifest themselves to the

highest possible degree. This explains why hierarchies develop, in every field, in every place, at

every moment in human history. There were once feudal hierarchies and now there are corporate

and republican hierarchies. Karl Marx was a student of Hegelian thought and so one can see how

he followed Hegel’s Altruistic Fallacy of human nature when describing capitalism as being a

corrupting force in man’s garden instead of capitalism being a natural manifestation of man’s

Will to Power.

Marx was right, the worker is indeed alienated from the surplus value generated from his

labor but this alienation is necessary for the survival and proliferation of the corporate organism,

which needs to exists in order to cultivate man’s ultimate productive potential. Many things in

the society are governed by this dichotomy of alienation, one can say that the laborer works all

day just to have the fruits of his labor taken by the hungry mouths of his children, and it is

nevertheless imperative to the survival and proliferation of his family and, in a very Darwinian

sense, himself.

Madison and Hegel have ideas which are both right and wrong. Hegel rejects the negative

separation of powers because he rejects Madison’s view of human nature as inherently ambitious

and self-serving. Madison rejects constitutional monarchy because he believes the republic is the

only way to the purist manifestation of the General Will. From the two, there is a Synthesis. The

Legislator will create laws as reflecting the General Will, the Executive will be appointed by the

Agradates 17

people (their immediate Will made manifest) and shall execute the laws created by the

Legislator, and the Crown will have the power to make decisions that are not subject to the

immediate desires of the people but representing their Will, all the same, by making decisions for

the long term prosperity of the nation. This Synthesis is heavily predicated on Hegel’s original

proposition but it now takes into account the reality of human nature.

The republican of today might ask of the fate of the judiciary in this trinity. The judiciary

is usually included in the republican constitutional triumvirate. To Hegel, the judiciary does not

belong to the sphere of primary state powers but is rather a component of the Executive along

with the police. Hegel states, “This task of merely subsuming the particular under the universal is

comprised in the executive power, which also includes the powers of the judiciary and the police.

[]” (§ 287). Hegel is wrong in this, as history demonstrates. The Judiciary must be a separate

entity. It is imperative to maintaining constitutional purity in its interpretation. Such can only be

achieved by allowing the Judiciary its own place in the sphere.

Hegel’s separation of powers include the Legislature, the Executive, and the Crown.

In § 273 Hegel states,

“The state as a political entity is thus cleft into three substantive divisions:

(a) the power to determine and establish the universal — the Legislature;

(b) the power to subsume single cases and the spheres of particularity under the universal

— the Executive;

Agradates 18

(c) the power of subjectivity, as the will with the power of ultimate decision — the Crown. In the

crown, the different powers are bound into an individual unity which is thus at once the

apex and basis of the whole, i.e. of constitutional monarchy.

Remark: The development of the state to constitutional monarchy is the achievement of the

modern world, a world in which the substantial Idea has won the infinite form [of subjectivity —

see §144]. The history of this inner deepening of the world mind — or in other words this free

maturation in course of which the Idea, realising rationality in the external, releases its moments

(and they are only its moments) from itself as totalities, and just for that reason still retains them

in the ideal unity of the concept — the history of this genuine formation of ethical life is the

content of the whole course of world-history.”

“Bound” is the word Hegel uses to describe the relationship the other branches have to

the Crown. This is an important point for how Hegel turns the separation of powers into a

positive instead of a negative, because obviously the powers are still separated. Hegel turns the

separation of powers into a closed circle. The state is stabilized by having the branches subsisting

off of their service to the people. The Executive is a manifestation of the people’s electoral will,

so is the Legislator, and both are united under the Crown, which is another manifestation of the

General Will. This gives little room for games of power consolidation.

Another key point in Hegel’s encapsulation of the rational state is the Crown’s “power of

subjectivity”. This power Hegel concedes to the Crown may be rooted in a fear Hegel has to the

subjectivity of the masses. Instead of simply giving the people power to elect a de facto monarch

(the Executive), one that is to answer to them, it might be prudent to let there be a third party (the

Agradates 19

Crown) who is not elected and therefore can think independently of the people’s immediate

desires and instead look to the people’s long term prosperity rather than the coming elections.

Elected officials cannot reasonably be expected to make the right decisions for the long

term prosperity of the nation if they must answer to the people every handful of years, nor should

they. The other branches can be electable, so that there is someone to hear the immediate desires

of the people, but the Crown is to be the long term visionary of the nation. Yes, the Executive is

the head of the Government and the Crown is head of the state.

The monarch’s main function is simply to “say ‘yes’ and dot the ‘i’ []”, (§280).

Essentially, the job should not be too difficult, especially for someone who was born into it.

The monarch MUST be heritable. The whole point of the Crown is to be a non-politicized

institution that exists outside the opinions of the larger community. Hegel states, “The unity of

the state is saved from the risk of being drawn down into the sphere of particularity and its

caprices, ends, and opinions, and saved too from the war of factions round the throne and from

the enfeeblement and overthrow of the power of the state.”, (§281). Hegel again makes clear the

importance of the Crown being heretical by stating, “elective monarchy is the worst of institution

[]”, (§281).

The monarch is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Hegel makes the ability to

make war and peace an aspect of the Crown. However, the importance of having the Crown as

Commander in Chief of the armed forces should not be an imperative of the Crown’s relation to

foreign entities but rather a more important component of validating the Crown’s internal

relations to the other branches. The Crown must have the power to enforce its sovereignty

Agradates 20

internally, but matters of foreign relations should be left to the Executive. The Executive can

make decrees of war and peace but it is up to the monarch to ratify them. In doing so, the

Executive gains full control of the armed forces which are to be used against the declared enemy

of the state. However, this authority can never extend internally. The Crown is the Commander

in Chief of the armed forces within the state, and even then the power the military can exercise is

limited according to the courts.

The Crown, as the rest of the state, is a secular institution, “As high as mind stands above

nature, so high does the state stand above physical life. Man must therefore venerate the state as

a secular deity [].” (§ 272).

The right to pardon. “The right to pardon criminals arises from the sovereignty of the

monarch [].” (§ 282).

Power to ratify legislation, “The second moment in the power of the crown is the moment

of particularity, or the moment of a determinate content and its subsumption under the universal.

When this acquires a special objective existence, it becomes the supreme council and the

individuals who compose it. They bring before the monarch for his decision the content of

current affairs of state or the legal provisions required to meet existing needs, together with their

objective aspects, i.e. the grounds on which decision is to be based, the relative laws,

circumstances, &c. The individuals who discharge these duties are in direct contact with the

person of the monarch and therefore their choice and dismissal alike rest with his unrestricted

caprice.” (§ 283). This quote also includes the Crown being able to appoint whomever Crown

wises to serve as an advisor and/or courtier. This goes the same for the Executive being able to

appoint their cabinet members.

Agradates 21

Executive

Hegel says the Executive has “the power to subsume single cases and the spheres of

particularity under the universal” (§ 273). The subsuming of particularity under the universal is

the Executive prerogative. All executive public servants are forced to make a judgement

regarding the concrete violation of a law. In other words, the Executive is to carry out the laws

created by the Legislator. In regards to foreign affairs, its stands to reason that it fall under the

Executive’s prerogative.

The Executive is to be the nation’s main representative abroad whether in regards to

politics or war. The Crown, to Hegel, is Commander in Chief of the armed forces, the head of

foreign affairs, can make war and peace, and conclude treaties in all their forms. “The state’s

tendency to look abroad lies in the fact that it is an individual subject. Its relation to other states

therefore falls to the power of the crown. Hence it directly devolves on the monarch, and on him

alone, to command the armed forces, to conduct foreign affairs through ambassadors &c., to

make war and peace, and to conclude treaties of all kinds, (§ 329).” Such power is unheard of in

a contemporary constitutional monarchy, and for good reason. Such power is the province of the

autocrat. Most of these powers should belong to the Executive. The holder of the Executive’s

office is impermanent and with the Crown having power over the military (internally) as well as

both the military and police being held countable to the courts (not solely to the branch they

operate under) the possibility for power consolidation is significantly diminished.

Note: The Crown must leave matters of foreign affairs to the Executive and both must be weary

not to contradict each other. The Crown should be a non-politicized institution. Therefore, should

avoid being pulled down into the muck of politics, and the caprices and opinions therein.

Agradates 22

The Executive is to be elected by the people. Hegel’s vision of how the people are to

elect their Executive is unclear. There is sizable debate in the United States in regards to the

rationality of an electoral vote vs that of a popular vote. Clearly, the Framers had a great fear of

collectivism and/or the tyranny of the masses. To guard the rationality of the individual against

the degeneracy of the mob, the Framers sought a way to diversify the manifestation of the

people’s Will, via the vote, by creating the Electoral College. How can one reconcile this fact

while respecting the Will of the people? The Electoral College is a negative system but is,

nevertheless, an imperative component of the state lest it be made vulnerable to demagoguery.

Legislature

As previously stated, the Executive carries out the law but it is the Legislature that create

them. Like the Executive, Hegel is unclear in regards how the members of the Legislature are to

be selected. In absence of Hegel’s thoughts, one must again refer to the Framers. Like in the

presidency, the Framers questioned how to best represent the people’s Will. Should each state

have an equal amount of representatives or should the amount of representatives each state have

be commensurate with the amount of people therein?

The Framers split the difference by having the Legislature be comprised of elected

officials who function in equal representation of each state as well as having a proportional

representation of each state, thus there are two Houses within the Legislature. The two Houses

include the Senate and the House of Representatives, together they make the Congress.

In a constitutional monarchy, the Legislature will consist of a proportional representation

(representatives based on population) along with an equal representation which is to be the

Agradates 23

House of Lords. Each state will have one noblemen that deals in matters of Legislation. This

person will have lawyers and economists as advisers as well as, himself, be educated in matters

of state. The noblemen of the Legislature, like the Crown, is a hereditary position. The

Legislature also has the power to ratify its own legislation, without the Crown, by a two thirds

vote. This is comparable to the power the US Congress has in regards to overriding a Presidential

veto.

There can also be a greater aristocracy, E.g. Marquess, Counts, Barons. Titles are to be

given at the Crown’s pleasure but these lesser titles shall not be accompanied with any particular

powers. Titles of nobility should be a reward to those who had served the people and state with

distinction.

Judiciary

To Hegel, the Judiciary is a part of the Executive. “The police and the judiciary, for

instance, move at right angles to one another, but in each particular case they coincide again. []”

It is clear to see why the police and the judiciary should occupy the same space, the Executive.

However, the interpreting of the constitution is far too important a task to not be allowed its own

space in the separation of powers. The Judiciary is to have a hierarchy that culminates in the

Supreme Court. The Executive shall appoint the Supreme Court justices.

Madison was right in his assumption of human nature. People will push the boundaries as

hard as possible for the sake of amassing power. However, he was wrong to think that placing

man’s ambition in naked opposition to itself would create a stalemate. This hypothesis has

proven time and time again to be false, a mere sliver of the examples are mentioned in this text.

Agradates 24

The only sustainable guard against autocracy is constitutional monarchy. The ambitions of man

are always pushing towards an apex, the imperium. The imperium is absolute rule. With a

constitutional monarch, there is nowhere for the aspiring dictator to go. The nation already has a

permanent manifestation of the Will and even then, the monarch’s power is limited.

“The state in its constitution must permeate all relationships within the state. Napoleon,

for instance, wished to give the Spaniards a constitution a priori, but the project turned out badly

enough. A constitution is not just something manufactured; it is the work of centuries, it is the

Idea, the consciousness of rationality so far as that consciousness is developed in a particular

nation. No constitution, therefore, is just the creation of its subjects. What Napoleon gave to the

Spaniards was more rational than what they had before, and yet they recoiled from it as from

something alien, because they were not yet educated up to its level. []” (§ 274).

Hegel is right to include this historical event in the Philosophy of Right, fore it is a

cautionary tale. Those who would reject the superior constitution do so out of their own

ignorance, and to their own detriment. There is little doubt that the horrors of the 20 th century

were a reaction to the Great War and, consequently, the end of the monarchy. As previously

stated, if the monarchies of old would have been left to their own internal development then

constitutional monarchy would be the prevailing political axiom of today, fascism and

communism would not have not been given such kindling, and the Second World War, and the

monstrosities therein, would have been avoided. If one wants to avoid the final confrontation

brought on by the irrationality of the current world order, one must act in a great and furious

manor to bring about the finality of the Dialectic and, therein, the finality of history!

Agradates 25

Works Cited

Hegel, Georg W. F, Arnold V. Miller, J N. Findlay, and Johannes Hoffmeister. Phenomenology

of Spirit. Oxford [England: Clarendon Press, 1979. Print.

Dyde. Hegel's Philosophy of Right. London: G. Bell, 1896. Print.

Steinvorth, Daniel. “Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan Facing Corruption Scandal, Protests - DER

SPIEGEL – International.” Der Spiegel,

https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/turkish- prime- minister-erdogan-facing-

corruption-scandal-protests-a-959453.html. Published 19 March 2014. Web.

Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, John Jay, Clinton Rossiter, and Charles R. Kesler. The

Federalist Papers. New York, N.Y: Mentor, 1999. Print.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Walter, Edward Lorraine. The Social Contract: Or, The Principles

of Political Rights. United States, G. P. Putnam's sons, 1893. Print.

Sharp, Gene. From dictatorship to democracy: A conceptual framework for liberation. United

States, Albert Einstein Institution, 2003. Print.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None. New York: Modern Library, 1995. Print.

Newton, Isaac, et al. Newton's Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.

United States, Geo. P. Putnam, 1850. Print.