derived from his control or influence over government that might
well be regarded as corruption in a contemporary democracy.
The assumption may often be made that a monarchic state is a
‘despotic’ one in which the monarch’s will is final. This seems to be
far from the case in practice. First the monarch’s position is usually a
traditional one. The same tradition that places the king in power
frequently sets distinct limits upon the exercise of it. The king may be
seen as divinely sanctioned and protected, but this implies that he
respects the religious feelings of his people. These may be expressed
by religious authorities – archbishops, high priests or synods – who
are regarded as equally legitimate within their spheres as the
monarch is in his. A good example of the sort of limit that might
apply is to consider the important area of taxation. In the African
kingdoms mentioned, Hausa kings were traditionally entitled to levy
taxes, but the Yoruba kings could only rely upon a traditional level of
offerings on specified occasions. Even the strongest English monarchs
required the approval of the Houses of Parliament, particularly the
House of Commons, to levy taxes – although they might be able to
manipulate a favourable majority by the use of patronage.
The limits on the exercise of royal power also include the lack of
any strongly developed administrative machinery, particularly at
local level, so that the king might effectively have to persuade
nobles/gentry and municipalities to co-operate. The political capacity
of the occupant of the throne was also a vital consideration. When
minors succeeded to the throne, such a system might, in effect,
become government by a committee of prominent court members,
whilst the chief minister of a foolish or lazy king might easily have
effective power. In the Japanese case, the shogun or prime minister
became the effective power for centuries, becoming, in turn, a
hereditary office.
Although kingdoms of the type described are now rare, they are
not extinct (for instance Kuwait, Nepal and Saudi Arabia) and the
dominance of this type of political organisation for centuries in many
parts of the world is a caution against assuming contemporary state
forms are inevitable. Furthermore many of the concepts we have
introduced here, such as political patronage and court politics, can still
be applied in contemporary political systems; consider the Reagan
White House in which the chief executive’s wife’s astrologer is
alleged to have been vitally influential.
SYSTEMS 35