75. Heinrich von Treitschke “Politics”

The second volume of Treitschke's "Politics" was recently published. An honest advocate of monarchism speaks out about forms of government. He distinguishes between three possible forms of government: theocracy, monarchy and republic. In the theocracy, the supreme power of the state is based on the belief that it is appointed by the divine powers and rules in their name. Rebellion against it is at the same time a sin against the divine world order. This form of government found among oriental peoples has no basis in the worldviews of occidental peoples. The republic is based on the power of the people. Whether it is an aristocracy or a democracy, the supreme power is in the hands of the people. The ruling powers have only transferred these powers from the people. It can therefore be taken away from them at any time. In a monarchy, the family of the ruler does not have the power by delegation from the people. So where does it come from? Treitschke answers this question by saying that it has obtained it through historical development. It has come into their possession, and from this fact the feeling has gradually developed among the people that power must belong to this family. From generation to generation, the people have become accustomed to conceding the right to rule to this family. This confession from the mind of a supporter and enthusiastic defender of the monarchy is important. Treitschke has grown out of the time in which historical development was revered as a kind of divine being. This time said: what has developed in the course of history has a right to endure; and the individual can do nothing against this development. The Age of Enlightenment, which only recognized as legitimate that which could stand before the reason of the individual, was followed in our century by this histotic way of thinking. Something higher than what the individual can recognize of his own accord as the right thing was seen in that which has developed of its own accord over the course of time. Treitschke's statement, however, clearly shows that only modern man who recognizes the power of historical development can be monarchically minded. If Treitschke were not a confessor of the historical world view, he could not be a monarchist either. One can imagine how Treitschke would have smiled at someone who had said the above sentence to him. For Treitschke was a fanatic of historicism and could only regard those who were not as narrow-minded. For the science of politics, however, it is important that Treitschke showed with all the acuity that was characteristic of him: in the West, the historical way of thinking is a prerequisite for a scientific justification of the monarchical principle. The necessary conclusion that follows from his view would be that those in the West who do not think historically cannot be supporters of monarchism.