Political Justice

  Examining these arguments at first glance, it cannot be denied that there is what appears to be a well-reasoned case against monarchy. But let us examine in detail each argument and then consider whether they are true or not, or whether they are practical. Monarchy may in principle be seen to contradict democracy, but we might argue that in fact, it is only in absolute monarchies that this is the case. The establishment of constitutional monarchy in the United Kingdom is direct evidence of the fact that monarchy can exist in tandem with democracy, and very effectively. Whilst the government is legally and nominally accountable to the reigning monarch, as exemplified in the title ‘His/Her Majesty’s Government’, it is accepted under British law, and common sense, that elected representatives are accountable to their constituents — the commons of Britain, who equate to the citizens of Britain.

  As we have already argued, equality is not a natural state of society and cannot be when people are born unequal. When human beings are born naturally unequal, it is natural to assume in turn that institutions will eventually establish some form of hierarchy — in the case of monarchy, with the monarch at the top. However, once again we must consider reality as opposed to possibility. Whilst it is possible that a monarch may establish absolute power, the constitutional position of the United Kingdom acts as a barrier to this. Whilst the monarch nominally has the power to prorogue Parliament and declare wars at will, the monarch does not use them out of convention. Any attempt by the monarch to use them would trigger a constitutional crisis which would ultimately lead to the abolition of the monarchy anyway. It is therefore against the interests of a sensible monarch to unjustly use these powers.

  But if the monarch never uses their power, what is the point of having one anyway? Well firstly, one should consider the role of a President (or equivalent) in a hypothetically republican Britain. Due to the historical role of Parliament in British politics, it would be extremely likely that Britain would become a Parliamentary republic on the abolition of the monarchy, considering the example set by Italy and Germany. One must realise that in these states, the President is little more than a figurehead anyway. Presidents are often not actually directly elected by the people but by an electoral college of some kind, and are often old, retirement-age politicians who exercise their powers sparingly. This kind of system would show very little difference to the system already in place with the British monarchy. What is more, such a President would in all likelihood be even less impartial than a monarch. Whilst the monarch is independent of the political system, unaffiliated with the party, obliged to follow the will of Parliament and not permitted to vote, a President would be a politician and a part of the political establishment. The Royal Estates also bring in income for government by means of tourism and the public’s freedom to visit open estates, providing economic incentive for monarchy as well.

  It was indeed seen best to safeguard British citizens’ rights with constitutional monarchy rather than with republic. If the ideological reasons are not enough, this sapient choice of our ancestors must be respected as the best choice for the country at the time, and therefore must have been considered the best choice for posterity as well.

  ***

  In short, government requires balance of representation and balance of power in order that the interests of every part of society might be considered. Mere representation is not enough, however; government must be composed of principled men and women, and it must have a set of values. So long as liberty and moral virtue are imbued within the state, government can act effectively, and with authority. If government fails to recognise that its authority is held purely for the benefit of society and of mankind as a whole, it cannot be a virtuous government, for it is merely the plaything of interested parties, used for personal gain rather than the common good.

  Appendix to Book III.

  Revolutions

  Chapter VIII

  Organised Opposition

  We have already concluded that it can be justified to oppose a government which does not have legitimate authority, by which we mean that it deviates from the values and principles of the nation and actively harms the rights of its citizens. If we are to properly understand what passes as ‘opposition’, when it is appropriate to initiate it and where the lines are drawn in deciding what is dangerous government action, we must now turn our attention to the following: bringing down governments, by peaceful or by violent means.

  If I had to make a personal judgement, we are currently living in an era where organised opposition to many governments is both necessary and actively undertaken, though there may be some who disagree with me. Since opinion is the centrepiece of political debate, there will always be people in society who disagree with each other and who might seek to implement different policies in society. This is not what I refer to necessarily, for the situation which we are considering is one in which the government can be proved to be working against the interests of its citizens rather than for their benefit. Signs of this sort of government can often be seen in the character of people in government, who often make unsustainable promises which they do not keep to. They may spread falsehood, or they may present themselves outwardly as virtuous while committing acts which prove they are the opposite. Legislation will often be introduced which restricts the rights to free expression and mastery over certain parts of personal life. Courts will dictate to adults what they can and cannot do, and the state will supervise education to the point that certain subjects are deemed too ‘inappropriate’ for the people’s minds, whilst at the same time, in order to prevent the public from becoming conscious of their vicious changes, the public will be placated with short-term gratifications and obeisances. Representation will break down as certain individuals are considered more worthy of representation than others, either because they are part of the interested parties of government or because they are part of a societal group which has been deemed favourable for certain destructive reasons. When one part of the whole is favoured over another, we lose our natural state of society; rather than recognising citizens as contributors to society, government recognises them as ‘members of x group’, and thus worthy of certain privileges. The political left uses this, as seen in the principle of ‘liberation’, by which they create false notions of ‘oppressed’ groups of society, to further oppressive agendas by turning a united society into a fractured series of diametrically opposed groupings.

  When government can be clearly seen to be using divisive politics such as this to damage the complete liberty of society, then we can confidently say that our government is not virtuous. The reaction, therefore, should be to promote virtue and point out the failings of government at every opportunity. Burke wrote: ‘When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle’;13 when government seems to be made up only of bad men, there is no choice but combination of the virtuous. First, this should be peaceful, and this is what we mean by organised opposition here.

  In this situation, engagement in political discourse should be treated by virtuous men not merely as a right but also as a necessary duty. Associations of such men could be formed to make such discourse easier, with material made available to the public by as many media as is possible to distribute by, so that those who may spend their lives unaware of the political changes might come to realise the threat they face. The people who propagate the arguments in favour of removing moral rights for abstract or unjust reasons must be hunted down and debated, ridiculed and shown to be completely morally worthless. The arguments of the government must be completely and systematically deconstructed. The obvious result of a successful campaign like this would be the defeat of the incumbent government in election, or perhaps the changing of policies by government to avoid electoral defeat. The latter is of course less preferable, but it is acceptable so long as the changes implemented which threatened society beforehand are reversed.

  Now of course any such attempt at opposition wi
ll be met with political resistance. Godwin says that ‘every man is bound to resist every unjust proceeding on the part of the community’ — he is not wrong. However, he considers whether political ‘martyrdom’ is acceptable. It will always be hard, even for a corrupt government, to impose death upon its opponents, so long as it retains some semblance of democratic procedure. However, the law may be used, if it is in the hands of a majority government of unprincipled and vicious persons, to persecute the opposition for things which they say, to impose fines on them or ban their publications. One tactic that has been seen against conservative oppositions in recent years has been the use of broad terms generally understood to be construed as negative in order to smear public opinion against certain individuals.

  So for instance, if the state is not properly controlling its borders, and so damaging liberty by allowing those people with antagonistic values to enter the country and begin actively working against society or further some selfish economic ends, then it may be necessary to criticise the state for destructive immigration policy. The tactic frequently used is to call such people ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobic’ in order to draw attention to the false assertion that their call for immigration control is derived from an irrational prejudice against foreigners rather than from genuine concern for society. Of course, such tactics should not be welcome in respectful political discourse, but in this situation, we are not dealing with a respectful government. Due to the toxicity of such buzzwords as these, it has become hard to argue for the true reasons why something such as immigration should be properly controlled, since the label is now associated with the individual attacked, who becomes a martyr for his beliefs. But a martyr is of no practical use once dead — a dead man, metaphorically or otherwise, cannot help a cause by his actions. Martyrs teach us that alternative tactics are required. Often, in the pursuit of virtue, which is what we are concerned with here, we must remain civil and respectful if ever faced with an individual inclined to use these terms. If we are truly to be moral men in the face of potential destruction of society, we must show that we have more respect for others than our opponents, no matter how little respect our opponents may show us. Since these opponents would use moral arguments against us (because being naturally ‘xenophobic’ is fundamentally a moral issue), we would do well to highlight the moral deficiencies of our opponents’ viewpoints. By pulling off the mask of morality that many on the left wear and exposing the long-term damage to a united society that their ideas offer, we can more effectively oppose them.

  Burke cited the Glorious Revolution of 1688 as an example of peaceful opposition which brought about regime change. Religion mattered much more in the Glorious Revolution than it would today, but the sentiment was the same. Parliament could not see how a Catholic King could keep his oath to uphold the reformed Church of England, and thus set about removing him in favour of a King who would keep his constitutional duties to the nation. The spirit of Britain at the time was at least in part represented by the Church, and the people of the nation could not feel as though that spirit could be represented, as it should be, in government so long as their King adhered to a religion with a very different philosophy. A more modern example might be the 1974 Carnation Revolution in Portugal, and similar organised movements against oppressive European governments where unprecedented popular movements, organised by groups of well-intentioned men and women against their oppressive governments, brought about democratic reforms and the resignation of many government leaders. It is possible, if due pressure is placed upon government at all levels of its operation, to force an end to its governance. After all, it is from the people that power is rightfully derived, and therefore government must capitulate to the demands of the people if the vast majority are dissatisfied with the present state of things. When the instruments of government control, such as the military and the ministers and judges of government institutions, are converted to the path of virtue, and refuse to support the deviant ways of a bad government, then can we know that success is a possibility.

  Sometimes, however, even organised peaceful opposition does not work. Therefore, we should consider the alternative which certain nations have felt the need to take up in various epochs of world history: armed revolution.

  Chapter IX

  Revolution

  We have already stated that armed revolution should be the absolute last resort of good men in any society, no matter how corrupt. However, we cannot avoid the fact that there may come times when there is no other choice. We should now consider, then, when is revolution necessary, how should it be organised, and what differentiates a ‘good’ revolution from a ‘bad’ one?

  Revolution has been the pet hate of conservatives ever since Edmund Burke’s lengthy tract against the excesses of the French Revolution was published in 1790.14 Sometimes, however, if the situation calls for it, even conservatives must rally behind the banner of revolution. The American Revolution is perhaps the greatest example of a revolution ‘done well’. Revolutions are by nature disorganised, steeped in anger and hatred, often without a sense of direction if they lack principles and values. This is the sort of revolution which ought to be avoided.

  First, we must consider when revolution is acceptable. Our discussion in the previous chapter showed that organised opposition to a bad government should be the first step, but if this opposition has done nothing to stem the tide of destruction and hindrance of rights, alternatives must be explored. Once a government begins to imprison or legally persecute those who legitimately highlight its immoral conduct, and begins to enact laws which openly violate the liberty of the individual — so perhaps, refusing parents the right to bring up their own children, or legalising certain criminal practices which actively harm other people or the vulnerable — then we can say that we have reached a situation where the government is not merely just ‘not virtuous’ but is actively criminal. If the government is criminal, then the political institutions it runs can no longer offer any justice. This is when the people must take steps to bring justice into their own hands. In America, the British government imposed high and ridiculous taxes without the people’s consent — the poorest were hit, life became miserable, and those who spoke out against the government’s policies were persecuted.

  When a government is judged to be criminal, good men tend to recognise it. But here comes the crucial distinction between a revolution founded on strong values and one founded on weak ones. In America, for instance, the states sent representatives to a Congress, which decided that the best course of action was to free the Thirteen Colonies from British rule. They recognised that the purpose for which their ancestors had come to the Americas over a hundred years before was no longer viable, that purpose being liberty and a happy life in the New World, an idea born in England and brought to a new land far removed from it. When England itself forgot its purpose as a free country, the Americas had no choice but to pursue it independently. They drew up the Declaration of Independence, which identified the principles and values which embodied the spirit of the American nation. The American revolutionaries had a document which laid out their goals — they knew where they were going and they knew what sort of government they wanted to achieve once the battles were over.

  By contrast, the French Revolution arose out of a Parisian mob, which had definitely been wronged and was suffering terribly, attacking the King’s prison in Paris: the Bastille. Leaders of the revolution arose with differing visions for the country: there were those who wanted a state-centred secular government with a directed economy, those who preferred a more liberal system and free trade, those who sought to kill the king and those who wished to make France a constitutional monarchy — there was no pre-decided agreement; the revolution had no direction. Thus, the Reign of Terror was the result, with landowners’ property confiscated, opponents of the Jacobin regime executed and holy sites desecrated in the name of radical secularism. There was no attempt to look at France’s traditions coherently a
nd seek to establish a set of national values to guide the spirit of the new republic’s constitution. What was the result? The tyranny of Napoleon, a new monarchy to replace the old monarchy under a new name: Emperor, for when offered order out of chaos, the people will always choose order.

  It was this discord seen in the French Revolution that led Burke to chastise it so greatly. Unlike in the Americas, there was no consensus, there were no common values, and as we know, a cohesive society can only be founded on shared values. Of course, in France the result was numerous counter-revolutions as well by royalist conservatives, which amounted to civil war. The French Revolution was also marked by confiscation of property previously owned by the Church and aristocracy, which was placed in the hands of the state, and later peasants who had no idea how to work the land or respect the great classical designs of French country houses. The destructive forces of revolution had no respect for anything that created a free society — such as the right to private property or the moral guidance offered by the Christian religion which maintains liberty itself. When a revolution is focussed entirely on abstract concepts such as ‘liberation of the downtrodden’, it cannot properly function; it must be founded on values which embody the nation; it must in other words have a sense of direction. The model followed by the Americans is indescribably preferable to the French one, which offered no coherent plan for post-revolutionary government whatsoever.

  ***

  Whilst it is not necessarily our main concern here in discussing the ethics of revolution, a note must be briefly made concerning the practicality of revolution in the modern age. Given the developments of modern society, with tightened intelligence services and the sheer amount of political apathy among many people who could otherwise be of use to mass political movements, upheaval of any kind is incredibly difficult. The New Left, or Frankfurt School of Marxism, found this in the post-war era when trying to reinvent Marxism into a theory which could be applied without violent revolution. Many institutions in the Western world at the time were inherently conservative, and followed many traditional values which are today derided as ‘old-fashioned’ or ‘not welcome in the 21st century’. In fact, it was these values which gave birth to the liberty and security which European had enjoyed for generations. The Frankfurt School undid many of these traditions with a new kind of revolution in Europe and America: by infiltrating the institutions of government and society — the ministries, the judiciary, the legislature and the education system (in fact, even the arts were not left untouched!) — they set about implementing critical theory by insidiously deconstructing traditional inherited wisdoms about morality and liberty. The morally degenerate was lauded as revolutionary and new, and was to be liberated, and any who spoke out against the changes that this brought about were to be criticised and ridiculed for being so very ‘old-fashioned’. Citizenship was no longer a privilege to be held by contributing to certain countries; it was to become a right held universally by all, with differing values and cultures abolished in favour of the ‘brotherhood of humankind’.