On Absolute Monarchy

It's a strange image for today, when you think about it. The "King" - the absolute ruler. Although the kings of ancient times didn't normally have our idea of the long dynasties (Egyptians excepted, of course). Our Queen can trace her origin back to when King Arthur burnt the cakes* and that's a lot longer than the entire Roman Empire lasted - let alone the Julio-Claudian dynasty.

The kings of the ancient Middle East, like their reigns, were often brutal and short. They tended to rule by fear - especially with respect to those close to them. Basically anyone called Herod was pretty well guaranteed either to be a tyrant, or to die on the orders of someone else called Herod. The Herods' reigns were conditional - balancing their own rules with the demands of Rome. And while the emperors in Jesus' earthly life were long-lived and successful, the start of the empire was no peaceful thing. But the idea of the emperor deciding which of his servants were successes and which needed to be replaced, would have been pretty common.

Today we don't "do" absolute rulers in Western Europe. Sure, some of us still have monarchies, but we keep them for entertainment purposes mostly. We've generally, apart from in Greece and Italy, got into democracy. If we don't like the rulers, we wait and eventually kick them out. It's a method that delivers change with a lot less bloodshed than other systems. And in other parts of the world where they don't get the vote, they find other ways of removing them - I note that the last of the Gaddafis in the wild has now been captured, and will no doubt have a fair trial before being found guilty and killed.

As long as this impure world exists, with its failed promises and creaking systems and political lies - as long as this is the way of things - we can tolerate no absolute monarch, no divinely-sanctioned dictator. We, as  failed as they, but not so corrupted by power - want the option to throw them out from time to time - ideally without a revolution. We see the countries run by bureaucrats, technocrats and theocrats and we shudder.

If there was one ruler of the world we'd follow, one absolute ruler forever, whose rule was supreme  then the only one we could accept would be one who totally identified with the poor. One we saw in the defenceless. One who spoke for the oppressed. One who broke down discrimination, saw through the divisions caused by race and gender. One who saw service as the only form of kingship.

Well, we might accept that ruler. Or we might decide getting rid of him was the best first step in any case. Best to be on the safe side.

*(c) Sellars & Yeatman