One reasonable critique levelled at Modernity is the lack of spiritual, self-sacrificing leadership – the concept of a ‘born to rule’ and ‘raised to serve’ king finds a place in the fantasy desires of many traditionalists, neo-monarchists & reactionaries more generally. In the more broad rejection of modernity, the concept of Kingship, Autocracy or Dictatorship has been easily accepted as the default best system by most reactionaries. This belief is held on account of the fact little justice has been done to the argument and understanding of how we found ourselves in constitutional democracies or republics in the first place.
Before unwinding a defense of the concept of a republic, it is pertinent to identify some of the undeniable failures of a more democratic form of government; namely that the system of Government is only as good as the common denominator, if your common man is a corrupt degenerate with no sense of civic duty your Government will be comprised with the same features. With a virtuous, self-respecting people they will align themselves to the propagation of a good form of Government. It should be noted here also; there are very few historical examples in which a virtuous autocrat has reigned over degenerates.
Secondly in a democratic model of Governance you are burdened by the sometimes sluggish machinations of bureaucracy – where decisions are needed quickly you often need to waste precious time arguing a case for a decision amongst various parties in the system of Government who can veto changes.
Casting idealism aside for a moment: consider the practical outcomes of history. We know of many examples in which autocratic models of Government led to the needless suffering of the nation more generally. This fact is where you reach a crossroad: Do I select my model of Government for idealism or for the learned practical outcome?
In the crisis of the Third Century in Ancient Rome, what was the more virtous end? Installing the correct Emperor in the purple gown with no regard for the loss of human life? Enjoying the banquet in which many many thousands of Romans killed their fellow countrymen, raided and sacked their own towns and cities, in which the wealth and blood of a generation were wound up and spat down the well for the sake of the ego of a few would-be mad autocrats?
Or is the virtuous end a return to the Roman republic – a return to normalcy and its sluggish machinations of bureaucracy?; a system in which the command of the military rested in the hands of a democratic body of men of senatorial rank instead of the ‘next-best’ would-be emperor who promised a bigger pay rise. Where war is declared predominantly for the benefit of the nation as a whole, or at least a much broader section of it.
How many Romans had to die and suffer under the weight of maintaining autocracy? Shall we consider the Proscription (death and exile) lists of many thousands of families of virtuous merit? Those who happened to fall on the losing side of an emperor succession dispute? What of Europe, the countless wars fought between power-thirsty, resource-hungry Kings and Barons. Who was killed? It was serf set against serf; brother against brother, European against European – There was little nobility to speak of when men who once traded bread and grain with each in neighboring villages and territories were now murdering each other on the battlefield to seek the glory of their own autocrat and to leave behind them widows and orphans to further degrade the stock of human society.
If the bloodstock of nations can be wrecked by the self-serving causes of an autocrat – how much more can a community or political organisation be brought to ruin by autocratic leadership? It has been said that power corrupts; if this is true (which I am of the mind to believe it is) an organisation without peaceful ways to transfer power between leaders is a recipe for disaster. As it has been written previously, what of all those good men, those true believers in the cause who cast in their lot with a well-seeming autocrat?
What happens when a believer find themselves 3 years deep into donating to and upholding an organisations cause and then run into a simple personality tiff with the autocrat and are proscribed – made persona non-grata. They will be spiritually killed – They will say to themselves, ‘if this is what it means to be a member of this community, to give yourself to it and to be thrown into the pits when my time has come – I will seek no further to association with this community.’
How many men must be destroyed in a brother-against brother battle to topple an autocrat who acts unjustly to his loyal followers? How many men in the Australian nationalist community have been lost in these circumstances? One should walk the wasteland of Sydney; which has from time to time over the last 30 years been in a nationalistic renaissance – only to be suffocated and killed by the endless stream of autocrats and degenerates who have operated in that territory.
In the Australian Natives Association we take these historical and practical concepts and learn from them. With our organisational object of sustainability and life-long endurance we do not believe in autocracy. We believe that every man who puts his own pound of flesh into the organisation should have a meaningful say in its trajectory, should be adequately represented by his elected members of the committee – to know that proscription could only occur by a group decision by the trusted and elected committee; and this only after a fair trial in which diligence is executed in coming to the truth of a dispute.
Where a man invests his life into an organisation, it is owed to him that natural justice is served. If we are to steadily grow and endure in this life-long struggle for the moral and social improvement of community, we must adopt a practical approach in which justice and common sense prevail.
To all those celebrating with us the 151st Year of the Australian Natives’ Association on Sunday – I look forward to our celebration together.
M. K. Grant