The Royal Edge: Why Monarchs Are More Responsible With Power

[Music] when you hear the word power what is the first thing that comes to your mind power will be viewed differently depending on who you ask some people will see it with disgust some will see it as a necessary evil and others may see it positively as a structure that bind Society together as for me well frankly I see Power as something that can be very positive for a society the question only is who is the person who wields this power and how responsible is he or she with it as a monarchist I put my

trust in the king or queen to do this task effectively but there is this phenomenon that I have commonly seen people absolutely terrified of the idea of a monarch wielding significant power over the nation and how it will inevitably lead to tyranny and the suppression of people people's rights this line of thinking is due to the famous liberal theory of power as the saying goes power corrupts so someone who already wields significant power over time will start to abuse it more and more to benefit themselves and their Inner Circle thus over time becoming even more

corrupt and the liberal solution to this issue is putting quotequote handicaps on those in power either through a constitution or Parliament to make sure that no one will be able to abuse power for their own advantage and then the images of dictators that pop into our heads like Adolf Hitler Joseph Stalin ma aong they just further cement this idea that so much power in the hands of a single person can cause so much harm which is why no man should be allowed to wield so much of it as to prevent tyranny and potentially save the

lives of millions I I have been researching and reading about the theory of power for quite some time now and the further I went down this Rabbit Hole the more I realized something something that as a monarchist I already had a feeling about but could not adequately explain it and that is that monarchs are so much more responsible with wielding power than any other kind of leader so in this video I want to present my arguments on this matter challenging this prominent liberal theory of power corrupting and giving my best to properly explain why in

almost every scenario a monarch would be the most responsible with wielding power and influence for many years social psychologists firmly believe that power leads to corruption But as time went on and research started evolving more profoundly several doubts have been cast down on this widely believed thought the truth in my personal opinion is that power does not necessarily corrupt nor is it necessarily a magnet to those corruptible but rather power reveals and amplifies traits that already exist within a person I will be basing this part mainly off of an article titled the psychology of political

power by parl Verma I will be leaving a link to it down in the description among the sources so I also highly recomend recommend you to check it out probably the best quote unquote evidence that power inevitably leads to corruption we have is the famous Stanford Prison Experiment which I assume many of you have at least heard about it the experiment went something like this it involved volunteer college students who were randomly assigned to be either prisoners or guards a mock prison was set up in the basement of the Stanford psychology building and the participants

were asked to act out their roles as prisoners and guards the aim of the experiment was to see how people would act when given a position of power would they be generous kind or cruel the experiment was supposed to last 2 weeks but it was terminated after only 6 days the study quickly spiraled out of control with the guards becoming abusive and prisoners showing signs of extreme stress and emotional distress so what was the concl illusion power corrupts and so the experiment was taken as a success and showed how power corrupts people or does it

in 2007 around 40 years after the Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted Thomas carahan and Sam McFarland wanted to answer a question could participant self- selection have led to the cruelty they were interested in researching the types of individuals who are attracted to and take part in experiments like the Stanford Prison Experiment so students were recruited in the exact same way as the students 40 years ago with a virtually identical newspaper ad and this is what the two one covered quote volunteers for the prison study scored significantly higher on measures of the abuse related dispositions of

aggressiveness authoritarianism melanism narcissism and social dominance and were on empathy and altruism two qualities inversely related to aggressive abuse carahan and McFarland with their experiment revealed something that was not thought about for 40 years after first experiment that gaining and wielding power did not suddenly make those students cruel but these students already possess these traits and by giving them a position of power it Amplified them and pretty much quotquot exposed them for all to see and these people who have these traits are attracted towards obtaining power in order to satisfy their domineering and sadistic traits

there are also other General issues with your original experiment that make it very unreliable a medium article about the experiment also reveals that the original pioneers of it may have edged the students to be cruel towards the prisoners so overall today the Stanford Prison Experiment is not seen as reliable power itself does not corrupt it is very much possible that it attracts those who are easily corruptible but most importantly it just strengthens and exposes the inherent trait you already possess many people like to take the Roman Emperor Caligula as an example of tyranny and how

it completely ruins a country but shortly after Caligula came to power Rome started developing and he lived up to the expectations of his people he elimin minated many taxes and created massive employment opportunities for Roman citizens overall in the beginning Caligula was well liked and he was a breath of fresh air after the tyranny of Tiberius but then Caligula started suffering from a disease that had a massive impact on his brain and mentality leading the emperor down towards a path of corruption and abusing his power but again power itself did not corrupt him if it

did then Rome would have never EXP experienced the many benefits at the beginning of his Reign when you think of a dictatorship autocracy or really any system in which a person has a significant amount of power you would think of things like a massive police state no freedom of speech and overall mass persecutions and Terrors against those who do not align with the views of the state and when we bring up people like Joseph Stalin Adolf Hitler and so forth these are all things that were present during their rules alongside what I would call populist

or authoritarian regimes in the 19th and 20th Century there were also other kinds of authoritarian regimes those being monarchies and Royal dictatorships and if one studies both centuries one would notice a very big difference between the two while both kinds are authoritarian sometimes autocratic there is a significant difference in how those at the top wielded and used the power let me give some examples probably the best example in this video I can give is Kaiser wilham II while the German Empire had elections it was far more authoritarian than other monarchies like the United Kingdom Under

the German Constitution the Kaiser had the full power to dissolve the parliament at any given moment was the only one who could appoint the chancellor and fire him at will and the Kaiser commanded the entire land Force being able to appoint Naval and army officers and ordering reforms overall much more authoritarian if we consider the liberal theory that power corrupts the German Empire would have become much more authoritarian over time with wilham II abusing his immense privilege to assert his power and dominance over the country and yet none of that happened despite his immense political

privilege he never really abused them in fact the vast majority of the time he played along with Parliament giving hourlong lectures trying to convince the parliament to pass his bills when he could have you know dissolved them and proclaimed a royal dictatorship he had the full right to do so another example is the SPD party the social Democrats it's no secret that Wilhelm absolutely despised the social Democrats and everything they stood for and he was not afraid to hide it either in a speech in 1889 he would State quote I regard every Social Democrat as

an enemy of the Empire and the Fatherland and despite his immense disdain for the SBD he never resolved to drastic measures to weaken their political power in fact since 1890 in every single election the social Democrats became stronger and stronger and after the 1920 election concluded the SPD became the strongest party in the entire country holding the most seats in Parliament Wilhelm was obviously not happy with these results and he reacted with considerable frustration and yet he accepted it and resolved to at least try working with them even after they gained power a party he

openly labeled as the enemies of the Empire Wilhelm never took to drastic measures to abuses Royal powers to curb their influence the Russian Empire is probably one of the most most famous examples of absolute monarchism with the tars holding absolute and autocratic power over Russia for hundreds of years and in the late 19th century Russia established a secret police called ukana to deal with political opponents when you think of a secret police you may think of organizations like the Gestapo or the nkvd both ruthless organizations that brutally suppressed and rooted out any kind of opposition

and the is primarily seen the same way a brutal torist branch that suppressed anyone who was against the monarchy but if you actually look into the Okana you will realize just how lenient they were by 1900 the Okana only employed around 8,500 agents in an Empire with over 150 million people and if we calculate that that is around 177,000 people per one agent in comparon harison the nkvd at its absolute height in 1930 had hundreds of thousands of Agents even the claims of Russian police and agent brutality are exaggerated despite having this reputation of a

brutal autocracy only the absolute worst offenders such as convicted or confessed political assassins were given the death penalty a more common punishment for political offenders was penal labor and yet even this was rarely handed down unless the crime was heus in the period between 1825 until 1917 the supposedly fearsome and tyranical tarist regime executed only 6,321 people for all crimes combined which is absolutely insane especially when you keep in mind that since the assassination of Alexander II Russia was anything but a politically stable State and then we have a few other smaller examples like Romania

under Cor II and Yugoslavia under Alexander the both of these European countries became Royal dictatorships in the inter War period but they didn't become dictatorships because the Monarch suddenly woke up one day and decided to take absolute power but rather they all came after a significant political crisis and the Royals used their Royal prerogatives in order to stabilize and bring order to their states and solve the crisis and even after the Royal dictatorships were established Yugoslav IA and Romania were both still pretty normal countries with several civil liberties still guaranteed to be fair political opposition

was suppressed but instead of resorting to mass Terror campaigns and programs against the general populist like in usual dictatorships they mainly targeted high ranking individuals with significant influence that could be a threat or going after very specific political groups like fascists and Communists but I believe you get the the point already if we compare populist regimes with royal ones on issues like civil liberties secret police political opposition and so on we will see that Royal ones are much more milder and lenient on these issues compared to the populist ones with the latter being much more

ruthless and uncompromising on these issues there is a very clear divide on how power is used and executed in these regimes why are monarchies so much more milder and lean ient compared to other types of regimes that either have a populist or military dictatorship and why do monarchs despite having and holding so much power act so much more responsibly with their Royal prerogatives it all starts making sense once we consider the previous conclusion we got on Power and Corruption power reveals and amplifies traits that already exist within a person this would definitely explain it when

we also think about the fact that a monarch and the average person who becomes a dictator are going to have extremely different upbringings and thus different outlooks on how power Works typically born into royalty monarchs are raised with a strong sense of Duty and responsibility towards their nation and subjects their education emphasizes history governance and diplomacy fostering a long-term vision for their realm this upbringing instills in them a sense of stewardship and a duty to uphold traditions and maintain stability influencing a more cautious and Legacy oriented use of power it is exactly because monarchs are

born into a position of power that they are not that likely to turn to corruption they already have a vast fortune and their position of power is already secure from the moment they are born so if they are are already secured with money and power then what kind of reason would they have to turn to corruption in the first place the main reason why people turn to corruption in the first place is due to those two reasons for that reason the overwhelming majority of scandals Royals find themselves in are love or Affair scandals not necessarily

corruption scandals with this I would also like to use the book on power the natural history of its growth by the author bertran jenel this is an excellent book that I recommend all of you to check out if you want to learn more about power and how it manifests in regards to monarchs juvenelle would write quote the Monarch is not in the least a creature of his people set up to satisfy their wants he is rather a parasitic and dominating growth which has detached itself from the dominating group of parasitic conquerors but the need to

establish his authority to maintain it and keep it supplied binds him to a course of conduct which profits the vast majority of his subjects to suppose that majority rule functions only in democracy is a fantastic illusion the king who is but one solitary individual stands far more in need of the general support of society than any other form of government and since it is human nature for Habit to and gender affection the king though acting at first only from concern for Authority comes to act with affection as well and in the end to be motivated

by affection juvenelle describes the Monarch not as a leader created to satisfy the people's needs but as an initially dominating figure possibly detached from the common interests of the populace however he notes that the monarchs need to maintain Authority and ensure its continual support quote binds him to a course of conduct which profits the vast majority of his subjects this suggests that even if initially self-serving or detached from the populace the Monarch is compelled to act in ways that are beneficial to the majority this shift in conduct is not necessarily altruistic but is driven by

practicality and the need for stability he would conclude by saying that this necessity for support and Authority leads to a change in behavior and ultimately a change in motivation from self-interest to affectionate concern for their well-being of the subjects and this naturally makes a lot of sense monarchs are driven to think in the long term one day they're going to pass their country down to their air and since the Monarch is the state and the state is their property then the question arises what kind of incentive would a monarch have to basically destroy their own

property populist leaders on the other hand are going to have an entirely different upbringing and experience with life which will shape their views on power populist leaders often emerge from outside traditional Elites their rise is frequently tied to Charisma and the ability to resonate with public sentiment particularly dissatisfaction they often see Power as a means to implement significant changes rapidly driven by a mandate from their supporters this can result in a more aggressive and transformative approach to power a populist approach to power can be more direct forceful and transformative because of the fact that their

mandate comes from a mobilized public rather than a traditional or institutional legitimacy this is why these kinds of dictators are a lot more trigger happy to abuse their power in order to achieve a certain goal no matter the means but that is not all these kinds of leaders almost certainly went through the ranks to get to the position they are in now meaning they had to compete against other opponents and enemies in order to wiggle their way to power and as I sometimes like to say the path towards obtaining power will always be riddled with

blood betrayals and Corruption and this process is inevitably going to change and shift a person's view on Power and how to use it a process monarchs don't really have to go through because they are already born into that position but it is also tied to the perspective both kinds of leaders hold when exercising power a populist dictator will always look through the lens of their political ideology or party if you are a communist you believe that the state is communist and cannot be anything else and for that reason you will try to rapidly transform your

country into a communist state alongside brutally suppressing and wiping out any kind of opposition from other political parties and ideas anything that does not belong to my political ideology is bad and should be driven out monarchs on the other hand are not raised to pledge their allegiance to a party or political ideology but rather just the country they don't act and Rule based on a specific ific ideology but rather what they think is the best for the nation as a whole and their subjects this is why monarchs are typically not as aggressive and violent towards

different ideas and they may even work alongside different parties depending on what the Monarch thinks is the best for the nation and sometimes even act as a third party trying to mediate in a constitutional crisis if a conflict between two or several parties grows out of hand and remember what juven stated that even if a monarch is initially self-serving he's going to have to conform to the public majority for the sake of keeping his authority and maintaining stability well populist dictators do not fall under this if the entire party is loyal towards you and you

established a cult of personality where everyone knows you cannot do anything wrong there is no real need to conform and be less self-serving anything you do even if it is completely selfish and corrupt will be seen as okay depending on how strong your grip over the party and public is taking all of this into account we can draw a simple conclusion if power amplifies traits already present instead of being inherently corruptible that means two people raised in entirely different ways and environments are going to develop different traits and perspectives when it comes to power and

responsibility a monarch raised with a strong sense of Duty and responsibility strict discipline and care for their country and subjects is going to be much more responsible with wielding that power compared to a populist dictator who would develop all kinds of traits while growing up outside of traditional aristocratic circles and especially while climbing the RS to get to the top two entirely different people raised in two different circles and two different methods are going to differ when their chance to shine eventually comes now does this mean every mon AR is going to act responsibly and

is every populist dictator going to be a bloodthirsty Tyrant not necessarily a populist dictator can sometimes even be better than a monarch but still if one looks at history it is a lot more likely and common for a monarch to be responsible with their power and not resort to drastic measures like populist dictators to cement their power and Legacy for all the reasons I mentioned previously I myself am not an absolute monarchist I much more identify with Prussian constitutionalism the system as seen in the German Empire but when it comes down to it in the

end I will always prefer Royal absolutism over any kind of populist or military dictatorship