Should Afghanistan restore its monarchy?
The question is being debated among Afghans who, enjoying peace for the first time since 1973, can think about the future.
Thinking about a future was a luxury that Afghans could not dream of until the Taleban were kicked out last winter. For a quarter of a century, the average Afghan could only think of how to survive the day.
In a sense, history has already answered the question. The return of Muhammad Zaher Shah, the exiled king, to Kabul last month, was a symbol of return to the nation’s monarchic tradition.
Zaher Shah has not been proclaimed king; nor is he, as we know him, seeking restoration as such. But the fact is that Zaher Shah is already recognized by all as the de facto head of the Afghan nation. It was his approval that made the formation of the interim government possible last December. And when he landed in Kabul last month he was greeted by the representatives of all rival factions, groups and parties. Next month he will head the Loya Jirgah, the traditional high assembly, charged with naming a government and writing a constitution.
In other words Afghanistan is already a monarchy once again.
One mistake is to focus on the forms that a monarchic system takes, and ignore its content.
One wrong assumption is that monarchy is based on father-son hereditary successions. But we have had that in republics of all types-from Haiti to Syria. In some monarchies succession could go from father to daughter, or mother to son, or brother to brother. In some, like Malaysia, kingship is a rotating position among the six traditional sultans. In some of the oldest forms of monarchy, in ancient Sparta for example, citizens elected the king, known as the archon.
Another misconception is that monarchy leads to despotism. The fact is that the moment a king becomes a despot he ceases to be a monarch.
The monarch is there to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power by any individual or group. A ruler that assumes unrestrained powers is not a monarch.
Caliph Haroun Al-Rashid, for example, would not have dreamed of doing some of the things that President Saddam Hussein has done. The reason is simple: Haroun knew that his powers had limits fixed not only by holy text but also by the institution of monarchy that he personified.
What is the essence of a monarchic system?
It is the creation of a specific space in which key elements of political power are kept outside, or above, partisan divisions of the day.
Different societies have different theories with regard to the origin of political power. Until the French Revolution the most popular theory was that power had divine origin. Today, the most popular view is that power belongs to the people. The “origin of power”, however, is largely irrelevant. What matters is how it is exercised.
In an oligarchy a small group have the final say and put their interest ahead of the broader, and longer term, interests of society. In a classical democracy the party or coalition that wins a majority of votes assumes control of those levers and uses them to implement its program in the interest of those who voted for it.
One dramatic example of this came in Germany in 1933 when the Nazis won a majority in a general election.
Because there was no monarchy to restrict their power they were able to sue their majority, which would not necessarily remained intact in future elections, to abolish the electoral system altogether and impose a despotic system.
In monarchy those aspects of power that concern the longer term interests of the nation are kept out of the reach either of oligarchs or of temporary majorities.
In other words, monarchy is about limiting the exercise of power, subjecting it to strict rules based on tradition, and slowing down the process of decision-making.
A ruler who assumes unlimited power, ignores rules and traditions, and decides on the spur of the moment, would be no monarch.
The need to limit the exercise of power and prevent hasty decision-making based on majorities of the day is recognized in many republics.
Some have tried to create at least some aspects of the monarchic system under other names.
In the United States the Supreme Court assumes part of the function of the monarch. In the presidential election of the year 2000 the Supreme Court performed the role of monarch by arbitrating a dispute that could have led to civil war. France uses the constitutional council to limit the powers of transient majorities.
Turkey, and to some extent Algeria and Pakistan, use the army as an institution that performs a part of the monarchy’s function by preventing radical groups from imposing their model on society on the strength of temporary majorities.
Switzerland uses referendums to perform part of the monarch’s functions. Major issues that affect the nation and its future are taken away from the government of the day and put to the popular vote.
In Iran the mullas abolished the monarchy but gave part of its functions to the “ Supreme Guide” who can overrule the Parliament and the resident. The problem is that those powers are used against the state and in favor of the revolution.
Monarchy is, of course, compatible with democracy. In fact, the most democratic countries today are monarchies.
Wherever monarchy was overthrown it was replaced by dictatorship — from England in the 17th century to France in the 18th to Greece in the 20th. The experience of our region is as dramatic — from Libya to Afghanistan, passing by Iraq and Iran.
Let us return to Afghanistan.
Should those with more guns have all the power?
The answer is clearly no.
What about elections?
Elections must be held but will not produce a majority. Afghanistan’s ethnic, religious and linguistic divisions make it a nation of minorities. An institution is needed to stand above those divisions and protect all communities against one another.
Only a monarchy, under whatever name, can do that.
