In your book you mention that there are about 40 monarchies worldwide. So why write about monarchies at a time when this regime is clearly at a disadvantage against the Republic?
Although the monarchy is nominally diminishing, that is, there are very few regimes called monarchies, something else interested me, namely the monarchy as the government of one. This government is much more elastic than it seems. That is, when people thought of democracies in the 18th or 19th century, people thought of collegiate decisions. Today, a democracy mainly serves to elect a ruler who is only one himself. What eventually happens is that we have, under another name, a series of monarchies in the classical sense of the word. They are not hereditary, it is true, but they are monarchies.
In other words, there are connections here between current republics and monarchies, aren’t there?
Yes. It’s even a bit more than that. I mean, the idea of government by just one is something that is present, which is almost undeniable these days. There are no countries that decide for universities of applied sciences by majority. There are no executive governments that are exactly democratic. Therefore, the monarchy, in the classical sense of the word, has not been abated and has not been declared invalid. Even restored. And that seemed interesting to me. On the other hand, we have already witnessed the nominal destruction of the idea of monarchy at other times in history. The various kings of Rome, for example. Then, when the Republic is established, the monarchy, as an idea and a name, disappears and is all the time frowned upon. But in the end he returns to the consulate [da Revolução Francesa], and this is also interesting: a political idea is never really dead. That’s what interested me. See how this idea persists, how it infiltrates under other names, among other processes, what is a contemporary life that seems to have completely rejected this idea of monarchy.
Source: DN
