A monarchy encourages nationalism

The argument

Proponents of this argument hold that monarchies generate stronger nationalism than other forms of government. The reasoning begins with the character of monarchy itself: the nation is embodied in a single figure, and national feeling therefore has one clear focus rather than being scattered across shifting parties, factions, or rival leaders. On this view, countries governed by monarchs develop a deeper and more durable sense of shared identity than countries organised around competitive politics, where loyalty attaches to one side or another rather than to the nation as a whole. The second step of the argument concerns what nationalism does. Advocates argue that nationalism inspires teamwork: when citizens identify strongly with their country, they are motivated to pull in the same direction and to work together for the country's success. A shared national identity turns a population of individuals with separate interests into something closer to a single team with a common goal. Effort that might otherwise be spent on internal rivalry is instead channelled into collective achievement. The third step is the flip side of the second. Where nationalism unifies, there is little of the division that breeds disagreement and fighting. On this view, systems that institutionalise competition also institutionalise conflict — permanent camps that disagree, obstruct one another, and sometimes fight. A monarchy's unifying nationalism, by contrast, leaves no such standing divisions to harden into conflict. Putting the steps together: monarchy fosters nationalism; nationalism produces teamwork toward national success and removes divisive conflict; a system that delivers both cooperative success and internal peace is delivering exactly what government is for. Because absolute monarchy uniquely encourages this unifying nationalism, proponents conclude, it is the best system of government.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Although a monarchy will be united politically, it does not account for contending opinions. There will always be different opinions that disrupt unity. Believing one opinion is better than another is a reflection of someone’s pride. Nationalism is truly just a generalization of one concept that everyone agrees on, rather than an authentic consensus.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Nationalism doesn’t account for individual opinions. Contending opinions ruins the peace between people.