In Impromptus today, I have some reflections on Leka of Albania, who died on November 30. In the company of a congressman and some others, I met him in Tirana, in 2005. It was an unusual and perhaps indelible experience. In my journal for this website, I wrote,
Look, it’s easy to snicker at King Leka, or perhaps you’d like quotation marks around that: “King Leka.” Many people scoff at the idea that he is king, a self-proclaimed one. Apparently, the U.S. embassy will have nothing to do with him. But he is as legitimate as anyone in Albania, and he comports himself with a dignity, an understanding, and a disinterestedness that any nation should value.
Surveying Egypt these days, I look with a certain wistfulness on Farouk, that portly, pleasure-loving old king. (No, he was not dignified.) Democracy is best. But a non-tyrannical monarchy is not worst. That much, we can say.
(This note was spurred by Mark Steyn’s note of earlier today, here.) (I wish Naguib Mahfouz were alive to comment — alive and free of restraints, that is. The Egyptian government often curbed him. In his last years, I believe, they wrote their own material — their own propaganda — under his name.)
There's something to be said for monarchs. On average, you get an average man as your king, not a George Washington, perhaps, but not a Kim Jong Il either. Also, the transitions between rulers is orderly: if "everyone" acknowledges the right of the eldest son of the king to become the next king, things continue without violence when the leader dies.
I believe that constitutional, limited democracy is best, but of the non-democratic systems, there is much to be said for one that determines the leader based on heredity rather than the one who is best as killing his rivals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse