Mistakes of the uncrowned emperors

Uncrowned monarchs almost always make a huge mistake in the 20th century and also in the 21st century. As huge as all those protesters who still believe they live in the republic, even though it haven't been around for a long time. However, this time we are talking about the mistakes of the monarchs.

Like the protesters, the mistake of the monarchs themselves is based on concepts. The monarchs think, that the main thing is to impress the people that the republic's institutes are working and everything will be fine. In practice, this is an absolutely pointless mistake that usually costs the state very dearly. Examples include Iraq, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, North Korea and many other such cases. But let's stop talking, let's move on.

The first mistake is the fear of coronation by uncrowned monarchs. As I said, the problem is thinking that by keeping the names of the republic's institutes, everything will be fine and the people will not protest. The best example is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. In reality, however, this mistake poses two huge problems.

The first problem is the loss of prestige. For example, Russia's uncrowned monarch, Putin, is desperately trying to get him into the world as seriously as possible, but it is enough to have a child in a European royal family or, even worse, to marry someone and peoples talk more about it than any other Putin performance. Russia, on the other hand, still has a strong influence of tsarism, and if Putin were to be crowned tsar in 2012 and a completely real noble system established, the princes of Saudi Arabia and other world leaders would still be very different today. Lukashesku was the most useless - what prevented him from declaring himself an irrefutable ruler like Turkmenistan?

As has already been said, the uncrowned monarchs have the misconception that preserving the names of republican institutes - the president, parliament, deputies - helps to reassure the people. It doesn't help - every election creates the feeling of a barrel of powder, which explodes from time to time and it only remains to understand - will it be possible to extinguish it, or not, and what are the losses? Which was proved by Lukashesku. If he had been crowned, no election could deprive him of official royal status, but he is now a usurper of power, because there is an official winner of the election and not only Belarus, but the whole world has to live with it.

The second problem is that the people do not have an understanding of what the real rights are. Take Russia as an example. Navalny can be arrested because Putin wants to. Poison because Putin wants it. Putin's friends are rich and outlawed because Putin wants it. Putin has a castle, and that is normal - as the absolute monarch wants it to be, it is happening in the country. But - if you are not crowned, you do not understand, why people come to you and say something about being elected and in general - that they have the law. What is the law of absolute monarchy? What are you talking about?

If you had been crowned, there would be no problem. In Turkmenistan, the ruler can pass any law. For example, ban black cars. And peace. There are no issues, discussions or unrest. The king said - the people complied. But here - walk around and shout something about elections, rights, laws, and all this just because you do not know why the official tsar has not been crowned and people have a wrong idea of ​​what is happening. If Putin were a tsar, then there would be no need for a court at all - there was Putin or other nobleman's order for arest or anything else and it was normal. What are we talking about? But now a bunch of people are taking to the streets, raging. There is no order. Are they doing it all peacefully right now? Well, in 1905, the people of St. Petersburg also went to the tsar peacefully, and everyone can study how it ended this year and what 12 years later.

The second mistake is directly related to the monarchs' desire to keep the nominal names of the republic's institutes, while completely ignoring them all. This mistake has always been fatal to monarchies. Yes, not immediately, years and even centuries passed, but still. A historical example is England, where monarchs allowed parliament and then became known in world history as the most successful rulers in the world, and France, where monarchs gathered absolute power and led their country as one of Europe's leaders to complete collapse. Napoleon showed what France's potential really was in 15 years.

If a monarch is crowned, he must immediately clearly and unambiguously mark what the people decide and what they do not, but at the same time leave it to the people to really decide something, not to do it out of sight. For example, the tsar appoints governors and returns cities and businesses to their court nobles as rent, but at the same time determines how much, what, and how the nobles can obtain by agreement with the people. In Russia, this point has been completely violated - the court simply looted the provinces as in ancient Rome, completely ignoring the population. An example is the events in Norilsk. If the tsar could curb the appetite of his court through various rules, while introducing elements of the republic that allow people's deputies to decide on something, and indeed allow fair elections within certain limits, Putin's power would be much stronger. But Putin chose not to crown and not to allow fair elections in any sphere and at the same time not to restrict the appetite of his court in any way.

What will it end with? As in Venezuela and Libya, with bloody massacres. And the protesters will not be to blame. If in Belarus there is at least a potential descendant - Kola, who in no way is able to create the impression of his father, then in Russia there is not even one. In addition, the lack of coronation prevents the application of the son immediately as a descendant. Or a daughter. Elections must be held again, which, as with every election, can provoke protests that no one will stand in power. Presumably, sooner or later it will also end badly in the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea, where it seems to have long been clear who the monarch is and who is the descendant, but it has not been officially declared and it is a matter of time before a country, which can be declared one of the worst in the world, will be even worse.

It is clear that the monarchs have an argument - they see how the tsarist regime ended. In the bloody revolution. Yes, but how long it lasted. And the second mistake was also made and could not be corrected - when the elections began in 1917, which could give people the impression that the state would take care of them, it was too late. Unlike the tsarist regime, the uncrowned monarchs climb on both rakes at once - neither crowning nor giving the nation the opportunity to express their will or listen to the people. Sooner or later, it will end in something similar to Tsarist Russia. Because the monarchs themselves introduce such a historical scenario by their actions.

Did I mean by this that the monarchy as such is not to blame? Of course no. The monarchy was good at the beginning of human development, but now it is just as good at developing the country as trying to compete with horse-drawn carriages against cars. But there are things that help a monarchy stay in power longer and perhaps even change to a real, increasingly democratic republic in a peaceful way without stopping the country's development, and there are stupid monarchs who will climb all the rakes because they just don't think enough. If the slightest sign of monarchy appears in your country, drive everyone who tries to do so. Or you will get to North Korea and then it will be too late.

Photo from middleeastmonitor.com.