Why monarchy persists in small states: the cases of Tonga, Bhutan and Liechtenstein

Abstract

Monarchical rule is said to have become anachronistic in a modern age of legal rational orders and representative institutions. And yet, despite successive waves of democratization having usurped their authority across much of the globe, a select few monarchs remain defiant, especially in small states. This stubborn persistence raises questions about the application of Huntington's "King's Dilemma" in which modern monarchs are apparently trapped in a historical cycle that will ultimately strip them of meaningful power. Drawing on in-depth historical research in three small states that have sought to combine democratic and monarchical rule-Tonga, Bhutan and Liechtenstein-we argue that, contra Huntington, monarchs in small states are neither doomed to disappear nor are they likely to be overwhelmed by the dilemma posed by modernist development. The lesson is that the size of political units is a critical variable too often overlooked in existing studies. Modern monarchs, Samuel Huntington famously argued, face a fundamental dilemma. 1 On the one hand, to promote social, cultural and economic development monarchs must centralise power. On the other hand, such reforms create a new cadre of elites whose political participation threatens to undermine their authority. By delaying modernist reform in favour of traditionalism the monarch can retain authority. But, stymieing progress increases the risk of popular revolt. As a result, Huntington argues, a peaceful transition from absolute monarchy to an electoral regime is virtually impossible. The modern monarch is caught in a perpetual trap that

Constitutional monarchies and semi-constitutional monarchies: a global historical study, 1800–2017

“…Iyer, 2019;Muni, 2014). However, as Corbett et al (2017) have Table 3. Combinations of monarchical powers in democracies 1800-2017.…”

“…Corbett et al (2017) point out that smallness is likely to counteract the gloomy prospects for the monarch outlined in 'the king's dilemma'. Smallness, Corbett et al (2017) argue, is linked to two features that are likely to make monarchies persist in democratic settings, institutional fidelity and personalisation (see also Jugl, 2020, p. 287). By institutional fidelity they refer to the fact that the birth and existence of small states are linked to actions taken by monarchs at crucial moments in history, which means that there is a 'tendency to consider the monarchy an essential component of the identity of the state' (Corbett et al, 2017).…”

“…However, based on the arguments laid out above, they differ with regard to how they are linked to the phenomenon in question. Huntington's (1968) line of reasoning suggests that the previous regime form explains why semi-constitutional monarchies emerge whereas Corbett et al (2017) link small size to the persistence of semi-constitutional monarchic rule. Indeed, it is difficult to see how small size could explain why powerful monarchs emerge in democratic entities.…”

“…EP*LP*DPP*DP Bhutan -16, Greece 1874, 1955-1966, Liechtenstein 1921-2017, Monaco 1962-2017, Thailand 1975, 1983-90, 1992 Countries: 5 EP*LP* DPP noted, the heart of the matter is that 'the king simultaneously devolved authority and cemented the monarchy's place in Bhutanese socio-political life' [whereby] he ensured a peaceful transition to democracy and sidestepped Huntington's 'King's Dilemma', at least for a time' (Corbett et al, 2017) see also Sinpeng (2007, p. 39).…”

“…However, within this category of countries the powers of the monarch can still vary, which makes it necessary to apply a further categorisation. Following Corbett et al (2017), I therefore introduce an additional category labelled 'semi-constitutional' monarchy. The authors define as semi-constitutional monarchies 'systems in which the actions of monarchs are circumscribed by a constitution, but in which monarchs, as independent and autonomous political actors, nonetheless have the capacity to exert a large measure of political influence ' Corbett et al (2017, p. 691).…”