I used to be a big defender of the idea of monarchy as the best (of a selection of admittedly bad) form of government. I was aware of the dangers of monarchy, but I reasoned that they weren’t as bad as the abuses of democracy, and I think that is still true today. Several things have come up that made me nuance my views:
- I am a Celtic-Anglo-Saxon, and so I draw from that heritage. After Elizabeth Tudor English kings have been terrible. Even today I don’t see a monarch on American soil, given our cultural heritage.
- Instead of opting for a “Hebrew Theocratic Republic” ala some old-school recons, I go with Calvin: an aristocracy might be better. Aristocracies allow the “better” of society to rule (and if they are incompetent they won’t survive that den of vipers known as politics) and curbs the excesses of the illiterate mob.
- Until Richard Cameron, even the most theocratic presbyterians allowed for monarchy as a legitimate (if not always the best) form of government. In fact, the Solemn League and Covenant seems to presuppose the idea of a king.
- Despite God’s warnings against kings in 1 Sam 8, the Old Testament allows for (and even normatizes) both types of government.