Before Centralization: Why Monarchy is Not the Enemy of the Republic
In contemporary political language, “monarchy” and “republic” are depicted as absolute opposites, as if one side represents progress and freedom while the other symbolizes despotism and oppression. But this binary opposition itself is a product of the centralized era’s rhetoric. What truly formed the foundation of order and liberty throughout history was the power-sharing structure common to both monarchy and republic—a tradition of aristocratic co-governance composed of honor, duty, and qualifications.
Without understanding this point and distinguishing the fundamental differences between traditional organic society and centralized systems, discussions of political forms merely devolve into label games and historical illusions.
I. The Fundamental Divide of Political Forms: Traditional Order vs. Centralization
Before discussing monarchy and republic, we must clarify a fundamental issue: not all monarchies are the same type of political form. The real divide lies not in geography or culture, but in the underlying logic of power structures.
Traditional Order: The Common Foundation of Monarchy and Republic
- The monarch is the “first among equals” of the aristocratic class, not an absolute ruler
- A decentralized structure based on feudal contracts and mutual obligations
- Local nobles retain hereditary autonomous powers, forming natural checks and balances
- Monarchical power is constrained by law, custom, and aristocratic assemblies
- Monarchy and republic can naturally transform into each other because both share the foundation of aristocratic politics
Examples: Medieval England, Holy Roman Empire, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, pre-Qin feudal system
Centralized Systems: The Essence of Despotism
- The ruler is the sole source of power; local officials are merely his agents
- Centralized bureaucratic system that eliminates or controls local autonomous forces
- All power flows toward the center, lacking genuine mechanisms of power division
- Under this system, no true “republican” option exists
Examples: Qin Shi Huang’s system, Louis XIV’s absolute monarchy, Soviet authoritarianism, modern totalitarian states
Just as the pre-Qin feudal system allowed complete autonomy for feudal states and nurtured the intellectual freedom that gave birth to the Hundred Schools of Thought, the bureaucratic despotism after Qin and Han completely eliminated this pluralistic order.
Key Insight: Under centralized systems, there is no genuine autonomy or division of power—these are not naturally decentralized, co-governing societies. Despotic monarchy invariably accompanies centralization; it represents the usurpation of the entire society by despotic monarchs and bureaucrats. This has nothing to do with geography or culture—Louis XIV and Emperor Kangxi are politically identical, both monopolizing all social power through alliance with bureaucratic systems, betraying traditional organic society.
II. Under Traditional Order: Citizens and Nobles Are Two Sides of the Same Coin
In the political tradition of traditional order, “citizens” and “nobles” are not opposing groups but different names for the same social stratum in different contexts:
Nobles: Constituting the ruling group through bloodline, military merit, and honor
Citizens: Exchanging taxes, military service, and community responsibility for the right to political participation
Both share the common characteristic of having qualifications for political participation and governance, both being members of a minority stratum. More importantly, most of the time, citizenship also possesses hereditary characteristics—the descendants of citizens are often naturally citizens, which is identical to the hereditary tradition of nobility. Whether we look at citizen families in Athens, senatorial houses in Rome, or merchant nobles in Venice, political participation rights were transmitted through blood and family inheritance.
Therefore, “citizen republic” is essentially a demonarchized aristocratic polity, with political logic identical to aristocratic co-governance. Just as in ancient Greek city-states, the Roman Republic, Renaissance Italian city-states, and 17th-century Holland and England, the so-called “rule of the people” never included all people, but only consisted of assemblies of those with hereditary political qualifications.
Citizens are hereditary nobles with political privileges.
Republic is simply aristocratic governance in the absence of a monarch.
III. Republic Under Traditional Order: “Aristocratic Politics Without a Common Sovereign”
The emergence of republics was never a negation of monarchy, but a temporary substitute for monarchs who lacked consensus to unite the entire aristocratic class:
- Roman Republic: The Tarquin dynasty collapsed, no one could succeed, the Senate took over
- Venetian Republic: Urban merchant class self-organized into aristocratic councils, rejecting foreign royal authority
- Dutch Republic: The Orange dynasty was marginalized, aristocratic classes briefly governed collectively
- American Founding: The British king lost legitimacy to rule North America, local elites formed a natural aristocratic alliance
Republic is essentially not a denial of monarchy, but rather the absence of someone sufficiently respected to wear the crown. When such figures emerge, monarchy often returns—as exemplified by Augustus and Charles II.
The monarch is the first among nobles within the aristocracy.
Republic is a governing compromise when the nobility lacks a head.
This temporary and functional nature of republics demonstrates that their deep structure is consistent with monarchy—merely formal transformation without value subversion.
IV. The Divide Between Monarchy and Republic: Formal Differences, Not Principled Opposition
In the traditional order tradition, the distinction between monarchy and republic lies not in the ruling class, but in the organizational form of aristocratic order:
Monarchical Polity
- Clear aristocratic hierarchy with defined leadership
- The monarch serves as both symbol and anchor of the entire aristocratic system
- Power distributed through feudal contracts and hereditary institutions
Republican Polity
- Horizontal organization within the nobility, or lack of core leadership
- Power allocated through deliberative means
- In certain historical phases, can expand outward to absorb middle classes and military merit personnel as “citizens”
Key Characteristics: Political Transformation in Organic Society
- Both monarchy and republic are governance under order and law; politics is merely one component of organic society
- Political life does not dominate other social spheres like religion, economics, and culture
- Bidirectional transformation is gradual and peaceful, not causing violent revolutions that destroy society
- Society’s fundamental structure remains stable during political transformation
Regardless of form, republic never escapes the fundamental logic of “aristocratic politics”—it merely represents differences in organization and structure.
V. The Real Enemy: Political Supremacism Brought by Despotism and Democracy
Two forces truly oppose both traditional monarchy and republic. Though superficially antagonistic, they are highly consistent in subordinating everything to politics:
Despotism: Usurpation of Traditional Order
Despotism is not an extreme form of monarchy, but a betrayal of traditional order tradition:
- Qin Shi Huang System: Legalist theory + bureaucratic system, eliminating nobles of the six states
- Louis XIV’s Absolute Monarchy: “L’État, c’est moi,” eliminating local aristocratic autonomy
- Soviet Union and Communist China: Establishing extreme centralization without nobility, religion, or localities
- Modern Big Government: Converting people into units of compliance through welfare and media control
Democracy: Dissolution of Political Thresholds
Modern democratic ideology not only weakens monarchical symbols but also hollows out citizenship qualification systems within republics:
- Negating hierarchy and thresholds, building rule on abstract equality of “one person, one vote”
- Replacing “responsibility” with “rights,” negating “virtue” with “quantity”
- Vulgarizing and emotionalizing political decision-making, unable to maintain long-term order
Common Ground Between Despotism and Democracy: Political Supremacism
Though superficially opposed, despotism and democracy commit the same error:
- Political life dominates everything; government controls everything, refusing to acknowledge orders beyond politics
- Demanding political power reshape entire social structures
- Both cause severe social upheaval, accompanied by violent revolution and social fragmentation
- Eliminating intermediate classes and autonomous traditions, directly exposing individuals to state power, atomizing individuals
The ultimate result: citizens become consumers, the state becomes an administrative corporation, governance loses sacredness and honor structure.
The essence of despotism is centralized social usurpation, eliminating all intermediate classes and autonomous traditions. In any civilization, despotism betrays traditional organic society.
VI. The Internal Mechanism of Political Rhythm: Order’s Self-Repair
In political civilizations with traditions of power division, history never fixes on any single system but naturally oscillates between monarchy and republic. The two are like two phases of breathing:
Transition from Monarchy to Republic
When monarchy faces legitimacy crisis, republic becomes the aristocratic class’s self-rescue mechanism:
- Monarchical misconduct: Unable to maintain aristocratic recognition and respect
- Royal line extinction: Lacking clear successors, succession rights become disputed
- Formation of new political units: Original monarchs lose legitimate jurisdiction
In these situations, republic is not a negation of monarchy but a temporary substitute for absent monarchy—collective self-governance by the aristocratic class.
Transition from Republic to Monarchy
When republics become over-democratized, internal contradictions catalyze calls for monarchy:
- Lowered citizenship thresholds: Political participation rights become abstract equal rights
- Decoupling of responsibility and rights: Participants exercise decision-making power without bearing consequences
- Vulgarization of public political life: Political decisions become tragedy of the commons
- Order faces collapse: Collective irresponsibility leads to governance failure
At this point, society calls for individuals capable of bearing ultimate responsibility, and monarchy finds soil for return. This is not “regression” but order’s self-repair mechanism.
The Wisdom of Rhythmic Transformation
This cyclical transformation reflects profound political wisdom:
- Recognizing that no single political form is perfect or immortal
- Monarchy and republic complement and correct each other within the traditional order framework
- Maintaining long-term political stability through institutional transformation
- The success of republics often contains seeds of self-dissolution
Conclusion: Restoring Order, Transcending False Opposition
We should not simplify political choices to the false choice of “monarchy or republic,” nor should we ignore the fundamental differences between traditional order and centralization.
The real question is: Do we still believe that honor and responsibility constitute the foundation of order? Can we distinguish between traditional order monarchy and despotic centralization?
In the traditional order tradition, both monarchy and republic are concrete manifestations of aristocratic spirit, sharing these values:
- Governance requires qualifications
- Legitimacy trumps mere numbers
- Politics is a privilege earned through accepting responsibility
- Citizens are not merely natural persons but those who shoulder the community’s fate
Despotism—whether Chinese imperial despotism, Louis XIV’s absolute monarchy, or modern totalitarian systems—represents fundamental betrayal of these ordering principles.
Monarchy and republic are not enemies, but chapters of order. The real enemy is political supremacism that eliminates autonomy through despotism, destroys thresholds through democracy, hollows out responsibility through equality, and subordinates everything to a single power center.
To rebuild authentic political civilization, we must first restore this ancient truth: governance means accepting responsibility, not wielding mere power; order springs from honor, never from the mere accumulation of votes.
About The Author
