SOLZHENITSYN’S DEFENCE OF MONARCHY

Chapter 25 of November 1916

This defence is put through the character Professor Olda Orestovna Andozerskaya, university teacher of mediaeval and world history, a fictional person said to be the most intelligent woman in Petersburg. Here are her words.

Yes, many people have been quick to raise their hands against their monarchs. And some have suffered irreparable loss….. It will be a long, long time before anyone thinks up anything better than a monarchy….. A cautious approach to the new, a conservative sentiment, does not mean stagnation. A far-sighted monarch carries out reforms – but only those for which the time is ripe. He does not go at it mindlessly, as some republican governments do, manoeuvring so as not to lose power. And it is the monarch who has the authority to carry out lasting and far-reaching reforms…..
     Firstly, a firmly established line of succession saves a country from destructive rebellions. Second, with hereditary monarchy you don’t get periodic electoral turmoil, and political strife in the country is reduced….. A monarch doesn’t have to make election promises….. A monarch is able to strike an impartial balance. Monarchy is the spirit of national unity, whereas republics are inevitably torn by rivalries….. The personal power and prosperity of the monarch coincide with those of the country as a whole….. For ethnically variegated, multinational countries the monarch is the one binding force, the personification of unity.
     Public opinion is often at the mercy of ignorance, passion, convenience, and vested interest….. Sycophancy has still more dangerous consequences in free politics than in absolute monarchies….. You always have to subordinate yourself to somebody. If it’s a faceless and uninspiring electoral majority, why is that pleasanter? The Tsar himself is subordinate to the monarchy, even more than you are; he is its first servant….. Monarchy does not make slaves of people, republics are more likely to depersonalise them. Whereas if you raise up an example of a man living only for the state, it ennobles the subject too…..
     The accident of birth is a vulnerable point, yes….. A monarch may be sublime. But a man elected by the majority will almost certainly be a mediocrity….. The future monarch is educated for his role….. And another corrective is his metaphysical interpretation of his power as a duty to carry out a higher will. As the power of God’s anointed….. [that phrase] expresses something real enough, that he is not chosen by human beings, and that he did not seek that post himself….. The essential point is that the anointed monarch is not free to renounce his position. He did not strive for power, but he cannot run away from it…..
     What happens under republican governments? Making national decisions becomes much more complicated. They have to struggle through thickets of human failings. Ambition burns much more fiercely in a republic: it must be appeased quickly. And then – the pyrotechnics of the electoral lie….. During an electoral campaign the future President is a petitioner, a crowd pleaser, a demagogue. No noble nature can prevail in such a contest….. A republic is based on bottomless distrust of the head of government….. A republic cannot ensure consistent development in any particular direction….. People think that you only have to call a country a republic and it will become happy at once….. Politics ought not to consume the whole of the people’s spiritual strength, its attention, its time….. Why should freedom be put before honour and dignity?
     Yes, the Lord’s anointed, and he alone, can flout the law. At the dictates of his heart. To show firmness at a moment of change. Or at times for mercy’s sake. And that is more Christian than the law. A tyrant feels no responsibility to heaven, and that is what distinguishes him from a monarch,

[Comment by Nigel Jackson]

We may not agree, or agree without qualification, with every point made by the professor. After all, Solzhenitsyn does not have his protagonist, Colonel Georgi Vorotyntsev, express any agreement at all with her – not even though they are falling in love with each other at the dinner party where this discussion takes place. Moreover Solzhenitsyn puts up a worthy character to defend republicanism, the mining engineer Piotr Obodovsky, a dedicated and selfless activist for the ultrademocratic Russia he strives so incredibly hard for.
     The truth is that at times it is better for a people or a nation to be ruled by a monarch, but at other times it is preferable for them to live under a republic. No form of earthly government is perfect.
     On the other hand, there are several good points in the professor’s case for us Australians in 2020 to take note of. And perhaps our own monarch is too much a ‘prisoner in the citadel’ of forces beyond her control. The ideal may be a constitutional monarch who possesses more power than she has. Perhaps Australia should really work towards the establishment of its own monarchy. In the meantime now is not at all the right occasion for a change to republicanism. We are fortunate to have a living line of triple succession: Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince George. Australians will be mad if they throw away the stability that the House of Windsor offers for any kind of republic.