“Jacques-Benigne Bossuet (1627-1704) reinforced medieval notions of kingship in his theory of the Divine Right of Kings, a theory which argued that certain kings ruled because they were chosen by God to do so and that these kings were accountable to no person except God.”
The above quote is inaccurate and is part of the whole modern democratic myth. This is used to suggest that somehow when Kings ruled they were absolute rulers without constraint on their actions or will. Then secular democracies came along and the people were free, ruled by the application of the ‘general will’ which voted for representatives in a parliament. The democracies limited power according to these myths by the separation of powers. There was an Executive, a Judiciary and Legislature, all separated from each other and so limited in becoming absolute power.
However if we examine the myths and break them down, we find that in fact they are based on faith and constant repetition like a mantra for their truth value.
Kings in fact were highly constrained by their social contexts…they depended on their barons and others to remain in power and they could not afford to go against the wishes of other influential groups in society. Kings were also constrained by and were meant to rule by submission to the Divine Laws, as interpreted by the Church in Rome.
By contrast democracies are not constrained and the separation of powers is ineffective and hands over power to the few. Since politicians claim legitimacy because they are ‘chosen’ by the ‘General Will of the people’, they have the power to make new laws and this undermines the legitimacy of the laws because they are only really authorised by the myth. This hands over absolute power to the assembly. Recently in the UK hereditary peers have been legislated out of the House of Lords in the UK (the executive). The reason given was that it was ‘unfair’ that hereditary power remained. However it is also clear that the life peers acted as a break against the legislature because they did prevent it from going to extremes as they were not beholden to ‘the public vote’, or ‘popularity’. Thus they have been removed and step by step we head towards the nightmare scenario of a all powerful democratic state, involved in every aspect of the individual ‘citizens’ life, regulating and dictating action and thoughts. Total surveillance for ‘our own protection’. And this we are told is freedom and the whole world should aspire to this type of freedom, or they will be attacked and cajoled into submission by the ‘international coalition of democracies’.