Monarchism, Republicanism, Legitimatism, and Korea
Father Jim Tucker, of Dappled Things, has posted an interesting piece on Monarchism entitled Habsburgs in Hungary. In it, he provides a link to a thought-provoking article with the rather lame title of More dynasty than Dallas from the The Budapest Sun. The article contains the following quote from Otto von Habsburg:
Words of wisdom worthy of an emperor.
There is no form of government that suits all nations, no matter what American foreign policy has said since the days of President Wilson. Catholic traditionalists will always have a soft place in their hearts for Monarchism, but just as for individuals the celebate state, though superior, is not for everyone, the superior state of Monarchism is not for every nation. The United States of America is a case in point. Monarchism would not work for the American people. It seems Republicanism, however dysfunctional it has become (largely due to democratization), is a form of government well-suited to America's national character.
But what about Korea? Traditionally, it was a Monarchy. The Choson Dysnasty ruled fom 1392 to 1910, when the nation was annexed by Japan, largely due to the incompetence of the royal family. After liberation, the Republic of Korea was founded in 1948 in the South, while a Stalinist "People's Democratic Republic" took hold of the North. In the South, relative poverty and chaos reigned until strongman Park Chung-hee's rule from 1961 to 1979, which ushered in an era of rapid development at the expense of political liberty. The "democratization" movement dominated the political scene in the1980s and realized many of its goals in 1997 with the election of Kim Dae-jung. What has followed has been a period of economic uncertainty and what many would label appeasement with the Stalinist North.
The question remains, which form of government is most "legitimate" for the character of the Korean people? The savage tyranny in the North is to be discounted outright. But what about the South? Although the monarchy produced a visionary like King Sejong the Great in the 15th Century, in the 19th Century it did not serve the Korean people well and would not be welcomed back in the 21st Century under the present circumstances. But perhaps with reunification, an heir to the Choson throne could provide the same focus for national stabilty and unity that His Majesty King King Horodom Sihanouk has provided for post-Khmer Rouge Cambodia.
Even after seven years in Korea, I am afraid I do not know the Korean people well enough to speculate as to what form of government might be best for them. Theirs is a highly hierarchical yet paradoxically egalitarian society. For the time being, South Koreans will have to resort to Republicanism. Perhaps it will not be until the collapse of the regime in the North that a united and free Korea finally finds a government suited to its people's character.
Father Jim Tucker, of Dappled Things, has posted an interesting piece on Monarchism entitled Habsburgs in Hungary. In it, he provides a link to a thought-provoking article with the rather lame title of More dynasty than Dallas from the The Budapest Sun. The article contains the following quote from Otto von Habsburg:
- "I am often asked if I am a republican or a monarchist. I am neither, I am a legitimist: I am for legitimate government. You could never have a monarchy in Switzerland, and it would be asinine to imagine Spain as a republic."
Words of wisdom worthy of an emperor.
There is no form of government that suits all nations, no matter what American foreign policy has said since the days of President Wilson. Catholic traditionalists will always have a soft place in their hearts for Monarchism, but just as for individuals the celebate state, though superior, is not for everyone, the superior state of Monarchism is not for every nation. The United States of America is a case in point. Monarchism would not work for the American people. It seems Republicanism, however dysfunctional it has become (largely due to democratization), is a form of government well-suited to America's national character.
But what about Korea? Traditionally, it was a Monarchy. The Choson Dysnasty ruled fom 1392 to 1910, when the nation was annexed by Japan, largely due to the incompetence of the royal family. After liberation, the Republic of Korea was founded in 1948 in the South, while a Stalinist "People's Democratic Republic" took hold of the North. In the South, relative poverty and chaos reigned until strongman Park Chung-hee's rule from 1961 to 1979, which ushered in an era of rapid development at the expense of political liberty. The "democratization" movement dominated the political scene in the1980s and realized many of its goals in 1997 with the election of Kim Dae-jung. What has followed has been a period of economic uncertainty and what many would label appeasement with the Stalinist North.
The question remains, which form of government is most "legitimate" for the character of the Korean people? The savage tyranny in the North is to be discounted outright. But what about the South? Although the monarchy produced a visionary like King Sejong the Great in the 15th Century, in the 19th Century it did not serve the Korean people well and would not be welcomed back in the 21st Century under the present circumstances. But perhaps with reunification, an heir to the Choson throne could provide the same focus for national stabilty and unity that His Majesty King King Horodom Sihanouk has provided for post-Khmer Rouge Cambodia.
Even after seven years in Korea, I am afraid I do not know the Korean people well enough to speculate as to what form of government might be best for them. Theirs is a highly hierarchical yet paradoxically egalitarian society. For the time being, South Koreans will have to resort to Republicanism. Perhaps it will not be until the collapse of the regime in the North that a united and free Korea finally finds a government suited to its people's character.
Redeemed by Our Savior, I work out my salvation with fear and trembling in Pohang, South Korea, where I live with my wife, daughter, and son and teach English at a science and technology university. Baptized a Methodist and raised a Missouri Synod Lutheran in Buffalo, NY, I spent six years as a guest of the Anglican Communion before being received by the Grace of God into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church on the Feast of Saint Andrew, my patron, anno domini 2002.
<< Home