This rung a bell for me.
Apropos of the EDSA anniversary we’re “celebrating” this week, this comment in Metafilter seems to address our country’s main quandary even if it has nothing to do with us in the first place.
This is actually something I’ve been mulling over recently - the way in which, during the twentieth century, much of the ruling class of the West (including many monarchs) had to confront the idea that it is better to have less power within a stable system than more power in a system you might be tossed out of at any time. I think you saw a similar thing after the Napoleonic period, especially in the run-up to the 1848 revolutions - the idea that the choice is not between being an absolute monarch or a constitutional one, but between being a constitutional monarch and being thrown out by some populist movement (right-wing or left).
To speak of Sihanouk, he had the experience of being driven from power first by the French and then later by a popular revolution when he tried to take too much power. The only way to preserve his power was to tie himself to the people, to become a quasi-benevolent “King-Father” (wikipedia rendition of his title) and constitutional monarch. In an age of turmoil and dictatorship, those who represent stable power, supported more by authority than violence, have an interest in allying with democratic forces which are interested in stability against those who want to dominate through violence, and the smarter ones understand this.
Recent Comments