Time and the neo-monarchist turn

Are democracies really too short-sighted to govern the future? And would concentrating power in a single ruler do any better?

In a new article for the European Journal of Social Theory, Professor Jonathan White examines the neo-monarchist turn in contemporary far-right thought from its early-modern roots to its present manifestations. He argues that while its logic may contain contradictions, the appeal of this authoritarian project gains traction at a time when long-term problems of climate, economy, and society are on the rise while democratic institutions are in crisis.

Abstract

"One of the classical arguments against democracy concerns its supposed short-termism. Early-modern political thought contrasted the pitfalls of elected authority, whose timebound character was seen to invite inconstancy, instability and plunder, with the merits of indefinite rule on the model of kingship. Such reasoning has seen two revivals in recent years, first in a neo-liberal form as an argument for technocracy (see independent central banking), second in a neo-reactionary form as an argument for an all-powerful executive or ‘monarch’ (see the contemporary international far Right). This article looks at the structure of these political arguments and the work they do. Having reconstructed their historical background, it charts how the neo-monarchist turn marks a radicalisation in democracy-scepticism, guided by a patrimonial logic of authority as property ownership. The article goes on to examine the political-economic factors to which this responds, as well as the contradictions to which neo-monarchism is prone. As the article concludes, temporal arguments for authoritarian politics may be dubious in substance but merit careful observation in a context of widespread disaffection with existing institutions."