[On the Instability of Republics]

[Conrad_Jalowski]

Here is a selected passage from one of my unfinished essays in the field of political philosophy explaining the composition and framework of despotisms and other totalitarian forms of government in relation to republics:

On the Instability of Republics and the Composition of Autocracies, Despotisms and Stratocracies

[By Conrad Jalowski]

Thomas Hobbes in his political treatise "Leviathan or, On the Ecclesiastical and Civil Commonwealth" expounded on the form of government that would provide order and stability amidst rising levels of chaos and dissension within the particular political entity. After years of dissonance, military conflict, political discord and the rise of petty factions in the English Civil War between the Royalists dedicated to King Charles I and the Parliamentarians led by Oliver Cromwell which served as the backdrop of "Leviathan or, On the Ecclesiastical and Civil Commonwealth", Thomas Hobbes viewed civil war with the total lack of governmental control or anarchy as the worst possible situation. To prevent such a crisis from arising, Thomas Hobbes listed an absolute monarchy [An autocracy or an autarchy] as the key force in maintaining order, discipline and justice. The despot ruled an autarchy that served all the needs of the executive body of the state, either as a single individual or an oligarchic body. The populace of the state served the needs of the head(s) of state and was similar to the description of a leviathan: a mighty force encompassing and presiding over all the affairs of state so as to maintain justice as well as maintaining the very survival of the state. The head(s) of the state held supreme secular and ecclesiastical hegemony which is expressed by the political concept of caesaropapism. Though the head(s) of state held complete dominion within the state, there was a social contract between the ruler and the ruled. Since, according to Thomas Hobbes, people were brutal, base, vulgar and horrific in their natural and savage state, the hegemon that represented the Hobbesian ruler(s) would exert discipline and a moral code upon the populace so as to maintain peace and concord. In return, the denizens of the state professed and practiced total devotion to the head(s) of the state. Thomas Hobbes was following in the tradition of Thucydides and was a major proponent of the branch of socio-political philosophy called Realism.

I agree with certain parts of Hobbesian theory due to my admiration of the doctrine of the political theory of Bonapartism. Bonapartism is the belief of a government that is strongly centralized so as to consolidate political hegemony within the executive head of a state. For the political theory of Bonapartism which was to have derived in part from Hobbesian theory, I always look to the example of Napoleon I Bonaparte. Although there were a collection of checks and balances that were in the guise of counteracting Napoleon's power such petty constitutional checks were meager to his vast hegemony. There were the Tribunate, the Senate House and the Plebiscite that instead of limiting his power, gave Napoleon I Bonaparte a greater array of political flexibility and control. I also adhere to Hobbesian theory due to the failure of republics to maintain a stable foundation and a cohesive political infrastructure for any long duration of time. In principle, a republic according to Marcus Tullius Cicero is a complex system of checks and balances; however, Niccolo Machiavelli stated in his republican treatise "Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy" that it took a single individual to create a great and populous state. It is my emendation that people need to be bestowed with rights and liberties that are in turn checked by the maintenance of discipline, order and justice by the sheer power of the sovereign or the oligarchic political structure. This is why I belief that Hobbesian theory though not the most principled of all governments is practical and can form a lasting structure as opposed to the dangers of anarchy, social disequilibrium, civil disunion and civil strife that arises out of states or domains that lack a highly centralized, bureaucratic and stratified government.

Charles-Louis de Secondat Montesquieu based his ideas on Polybius, Titus Livy, Niccolo Machiavelli, Plato and Aristotle. His concept of government was based on a balance of powers resulting in political equilibrium and a concord between the multifarious branches of government. A prime example of a mode of government based on Montesquieu's theoretical constructions was the July Monarchy of Louis-Philippe I that lasted from 1830-1848 CE. Louis-Philippe I was a constitutional monarch who held more limited powers than during the Bourbon Restoration [1815-1830 CE] of King Louis XVIII [1815-1824 CE]and King Charles X [1824-1830 CE], and was limited in political power by the legislative body, or an oligarchic mode of government. During the reign of Louis-Philippe I of the July Monarchy, the electoral voting capabilities increased from 94,000 individuals in 1830 CE to over 200,000 individuals in 1848 CE. Though this version of a balance of powers as expounded by Montesquieu achieved political equipollence, it was ephemeral due to the hubris of petty individuals that strove to tear asunder the institutions of civil society. Montesquieu noted that contumelious individuals could eradicate even the most balanced and fairest of governments.

For the explanation of the dilapidation or the decay of civil government, Charles de Montesquieu adhered to the Polybian Cycle of government. According to such a system, out of anarchy a principate would arise under a just and benevolent ruler. After a certain amount of generations had passed, the principate would devolve into despotism. With poisonous passions, the despot/autarch would overwhelm and consume the principles that founded the glorious principate. Thus, an aristocracy would arise. However, with each passing generation, the aristocrats became more indolent, despondent, uxorious and ostentatious. In such throes of civil discord the aristocracy would degenerate into an oligarchy. Enraged, the populace would rebel against the current order and remove it. A democracy would arise in which all were given moderate freedom and order kept chaos at bay. As many generations would pass, demagogues would arise and the populace would become licentious, elemental and irrational. Finally, chaos would be unleashed through civil disunion leading to a state of anarchy. These actions are cyclical and as according to Charles de Montesquieu and Niccolo Machiavelli would continue to cycle indefinitely until the interference of external forces.

Finally, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel once noted that men exist only as a collective whole, a dense agglomeration of repressed individuals that conform to the whim of society. It is the duty of the great man of history or the Hegelian World-Historical Individual to usher in the ultimate synthesis and sow the progression of humanity. The common rabble that represents the people is indeed savage, mendacious, brutish, corrupt, perfidious, irresolute, fickle and wild.

[SunTzu123]

It would be far easier to have a dictatorship. More would get done. Look at rome when it had a senate... damn senators lol...
Of course i doubt we would have the rights we do today.

[LaoOmologo]

It would be far easier to have a dictatorship. More would get done. Look at rome when it had a senate... damn senators lol...
Of course i doubt we would have the rights we do today.

What rights? The right to vote? Well, I say for the losing parts it is more or less a dicatorship.

[SunTzu123]

have you guys read lord of the flies. Jack is able to provide his followers with abundance of food, safety and security while Ralph barely scraped by. Jack controled his gang much better than Ralph. While Ralph's style of government may seem morally correct, Jack's style of government is able to deliver great results, establish unity and accordance among his members and hold total control over his disciples, and these are the main characteristics to look in when judging which style of government is stronger and more effective.

[Bree Fletcher]

have you guys read lord of the flies. Jack is able to provide his followers with abundance of food, safety and security while Ralph barely scraped by. Jack controled his gang much better than Ralph. While Ralph's style of government may seem morally correct, Jack's style of government is able to deliver great results, establish unity and accordance among his members and hold total control over his disciples, and these are the main characteristics to look in when judging which style of government is stronger and more effective.

Heh. Lord of the Files. Good stuff. Anyway, Jack's success is partly due to the fact that his entire "gang" were immature schoolboys.

[BrotherhoodUK]

have you guys read lord of the flies. Jack is able to provide his followers with abundance of food, safety and security while Ralph barely scraped by. Jack controled his gang much better than Ralph. While Ralph's style of government may seem morally correct, Jack's style of government is able to deliver great results, establish unity and accordance among his members and hold total control over his disciples, and these are the main characteristics to look in when judging which style of government is stronger and more effective.

Yes, I agree.

However, if dictatorships are the way to go, I believe we should be allowed to elect the dictator. It's kind of a democratic dictatorship, where the people elect the leader who decides everything.

That combines the best of both worlds.

[SunTzu123]

Yes, I agree.

However, if dictatorships are the way to go, I believe we should be allowed to elect the dictator. It's kind of a democratic dictatorship, where the people elect the leader who decides everything.

That combines the best of both worlds.

instead of based on family lines? i agree

[LaoOmologo]

Yes, I agree.

However, if dictatorships are the way to go, I believe we should be allowed to elect the dictator. It's kind of a democratic dictatorship, where the people elect the leader who decides everything.

That combines the best of both worlds.

Or we can have a Despotic King? Suddenly we have Sextus Tarquinius as our leader 0o.

[Bree Fletcher]

Yes, I agree.

However, if dictatorships are the way to go, I believe we should be allowed to elect the dictator. It's kind of a democratic dictatorship, where the people elect the leader who decides everything.

That combines the best of both worlds.

Which is why FDR was quite successful. With the way he commanded government in his day, he was edging in on dictatorship. (Not that he actually got there, sadly.)

[Conrad_Jalowski]

Hopefully, we would be blessed with a benevolent suzerain in the form of the emperors Nerva [96-98 CE], Trajan [98-117 CE], Hadrian [117-138 CE], Antoninus Pius [138-161 CE] and Marcus Aurelius [161-180 CE].