SNA (Tokyo) — On the death of Queen Elizabeth II, let’s talk about monarchies. Why do they still exist, and should they still be allowed to exist?

Monarchies are as old as civilization. Kings and hereditary power were once the norm worldwide, as they were the means to control land and offer protection for farming peasants, exchanging food supply for protection from invaders—when the system worked as promised.

But it often didn’t. “Good” kings were relatively rare and their legacies unsustainable. Sooner or later, the people got unlucky under some ruler whose only claim to power was divine right, suffering under a king or queen who had gotten a God Complex, or was being manipulated by an unscrupulous elite.

Either way, their regimes cared naught about the welfare of most people in their kingdom, forcing them to pay treasure to corrupt systems, sending them to die in meaningless wars, and leaving them dirt poor at the best of times or starving in the worst.

That’s the reason why today very few absolute monarchies remain in the world. You simply can’t trust kings and queens to look out for any interests but their own. It took a couple of millennia, but people eventually realized that a monarch, or any leader unaccountable for their actions, had to be reined in.

Most countries acknowledge that the best of all flawed systems is a government where people can choose their leaders. That’s why even one-party autocratic states have elections. Replacing leaders bloodlessly on a regular basis, under a franchise that expands suffrage to as many people as possible, on average produces a better minimum standard of living for all.

So why do so many stable advanced democracies, such as the United Kingdom, retain their monarchies?

Well, they have tried to get rid of them, but leaders found that monarchies are powerful enough symbols to the masses that getting a king’s “approval” to hold power, at least nominally, legitimizes the current leadership. So they exist as an anachronistic convenience, i.e., “constitutional monarchs,” but are kept on a tight leash.

Royals serve as heads of state, professional diplomats spreading goodwill, presiders over ceremonies and government functions, and occasionally spokespeople for charitable causes. But they had better know their place—they exist to serve the people rather than the other way round.

I’ve always been of two minds about whether royal families should exist in modern democracies. On one hand, they’re good for making sure traditional practices, symbols, and architecture are maintained—for people inchoately crave a link to the past, and need something to make them feel a part of something special.

There are also economic arguments. For example, governments love raking in all the filthy lucre from gawping tourists at, say, Buckingham Palace. And we’re all just suckers for pomp and circumstance. We’re socialized from childhood to dream of princes and princesses, and take guilty pleasure as adults in the gossip and peccadillos of palace intrigue. People want royals like societies need celebrities.

On the other hand, royals are generally moochers. They often control the treasures of empire and don’t pay their fair share of taxes. Their functionaries also generally control the historical narrative to turn their imperial plunder into something positive. Sure, royals kindly cut the ribbon at the local mall opening, but get to live in a castle they inherited.

But the most important downside is the double-edged sword of being a national symbol. Monarchies don’t usually represent progressive thinking in a society. Conservative elements routinely leverage them to legitimize a vague agenda of religiosity and mysticism. Awful things have been done—and still are being done—to people around the world in monarchs’ names.

In Japan’s case we never really did get to the bottom of Emperor Hirohito’s war guilt. To even question it is to invite outrage from reactionaries.

Kings and queens can bring out the worst in people, as the fate of late journalist Jamal Khashoggi attests.

Still, monarchs can use their power to nudge things in the right direction. For example, after the death of fascist dictator Francisco Franco, King Juan Carlos was instrumental in leading Spain towards democracy. Or when Thailand’s King Bhumibol Adulyadej brokered negotiations between bitter political rivals, who else could have done this bloodlessly?

That’s the thing about monarchs–they’re handy tools, but with minds of their own. The key is to educate their minds carefully about what their power as a national symbol means, and how they should wield it properly.

For that to happen, royals need a good education in the liberal arts, civics, critical thinking, and the principles of good governance, i.e., public policies that seek to right wrongs. They should know how not to be anybody’s fool, but they also need the basics of understanding what the future needs (e.g., open-mindedness, tolerance of diversity, a grasp of the principles of equal protection under the laws, and a nuanced historical understanding of how their empire has treated the world).

If royalty used their special status to increase tolerance and inclusiveness, or to highlight the plight of the downtrodden and disadvantaged in society (as Britain’s Princess Diana famously did), they could act as shortcuts to the legitimization of progressive policies.

In Emperor Akihito’s case, he usefully highlighted the plight of domestic South American minorities and acknowledged his family’s Korean roots.

King Charles III has started on a positive note, acknowledging the multiracial elements of his family by mentioning the ostracized and bullied Meghan Markle.

If he ever went further, such as acknowledging the many historical sins of the British Empire (as Japanese emperors have for Japan’s wartime behavior), it would go a long way toward furthering the postcolonial healing process.

Granted, kings and queens are an enormous risk: For every stabilizer like King Bhumibol or Oman’s Sultan Qaboos bin Said, you get the dangerous entitlement of Brunei’s Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah or Saudi Arabia’s Mohammad bin Salman.

Moreover, even the most well-intentioned monarch finds their leash constrained by their minders. Their default response is toward conservatism, as kings are by nature part of conservative elements of society. That means the king or queen will need to make some conscious effort to understand why liberal and progressive ideologies offer a better future that values diversity, tolerance, and openness to the changes in society that time will inevitably bring.

If monarchies are still to exist, let’s put them to work to further the cause of progressive change. If they won’t, then make them commoners like the rest of us and get them out of our way.

For breaking news, follow on Twitter @ShingetsuNews