Monarchy is often done little help by its defenders, who usually say that it is irrational but beneficial. Most often its attackers will say that it is "romanticism". However, a look at the history of political theory reveals that it is not monarchy, but democracy, that is the product of Romanticism.(Via Serge) Share
Let me make clear that I am not making a critique of representative "democracy", which at its best, represents the "republican" element necessary for any healthy government: the people need to take responsibility for their own government (while at the the same it is an unavoidable fact that people must be governed). There is thus, in some modern concepts of "democracy", as expressed by some, one thinks of Winston Churchill, or the previous Holy Father (to be beatified tomorrow), an essential truth that must be taken into account in order to have a just society.
However, the previous Holy Father also warned against what he called "democraticism", that is the belief that a majority of the people must be right on any particular subject, that the fundamental and unchangeable truths of morality or religion are relative, and that their validity is subject to the judgment of the majority. This idea, which underlies most modern democracy (as well as ancient critiques of democracy), the notion that somehow a majority of the people must be right on any issue, this notion in fact is from Romanticism, especially that of Rousseau, and further it is patently irrational.
On the other hand, monarchy exemplifies precisely that personalism that was one of the hallmarks of the John Paul II's philosophy, and an aspect of personalism on which all Christians, whatever their philosophical leaning, indeed anyone who has been a student of classical philosophy, should be able to agree. This is the truth that human society is composed of and based upon relations between persons, and that therefore the good of human society is based upon loyalty to and trust in persons. (Read entire article.)