A nation that fought a revolution against monarchy and organized itself as a constitutional republic--that's us, my friends--now finds itself supporting absolute monarchs around the globe. We supported the Shah of Iran. We support the hereditary kings and sheiks of Gulf States, like Bahrain and Arabia. Note that I say Arabia rather than Saudi Arabia. Sa'ud is the name of the royal family. Calling the nation by that name implies that they own the whole country.
Part (but only part) of this support is explained by political convenience: U.S.-based companies extract oil at bargain prices in return for keeping a royal family living in luxury. Democratic governments in these petro-states would not be so compliant. They might nationalize the oil fields and distribute the wealth among the general population.
The other part is that slavish trait in the human psyche that makes people create kings and worship them. It's what explains the American fascination with the recent British royal wedding. I mean, who cares about these useless creatures? None of them wrote a great book or great music; none of them invented a useful gadget, taught school, or even cured a wart.
The institution of kingship goes back a long way, at least to the 4th Millennium BCE in Sumeria. According to their writings, "When kingship descended from Heaven, the first king was in Eridu [their oldest city]." So not only do we create kings, we insist that a god or gods foisted them off on us. And ever since then, royalty claims to rule by divine right. The Israelites did the same thing, only a couple of millennia later. I talk about it in The Throne in the Heart of the Sea, when Elijah's uncle Reuben retells the story from the first Book of Samuel (Shmuel): "The people said we want a king, just like every other nation. Shmuel told them all kings were tyrants. Did they listen? No, and we've been suffering ever since. One thug kills the next, installs himself as master, and everybody rushes to kiss his feet, give him their daughters, and die in battle to glorify him."
Every now and again, human beings get up off their knees and establish some kind of democracy or republic, however limited or imperfect. The Greeks did it, the Romans did it, the French did, and so did we. But for some reason the slavish trait oozes up again, and the new state succumbs to a tyrant, a Nero or Caligula. We seem to be headed in that direction, as our most recent thugs-in-chief have asserted the royal privilege of detention without trial, torture, and assassination, on their word alone.
Martha, people have written thousands--if not tens of thousands--of books on kingship. But think: there are two circumstances that must be in place before the institution can arise. The first is sedentarism and the second is metallurgy. The first kings arose once large populations were committed to farming as a way of life, and when it was no longer possible to make your own weapons. Farmers also supply a surplus of young men, which is the group of people most prone to violence.
ReplyDelete