[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Hmm. Hmm. Hmmmm. Let's not be hasty. On what grounds do you make this claim about "optimium form of government", assuming you are speaking also for Tolkien?

Is this the same thing as the quasi-divine right of kingship which Aragorn apparently represents?

Hehe. I knew that someone would pick me up on my little aside and I could have laid odds on it being you, Bb.

I do not claim to speak for Tolkien, although it was the discussion on another thread here concerning Tolkien and politics, together with my own intense dislike of our what passes for "democracy" in my country, that prompted my thoughts concerning the ideal solution of a benevolent dictatorship. And, yes, Aragorn's rule might be considered a representation of it, although the "divine rule" aspect is not, to my mind, a necessary element. It is more important, in my view, that the people accept the ruler as their ruler. Aragorn had both (and this issue, I think, was explored in the thread which prompted my original thoughts).

The main problem with democracy, as I see it, is that an elected government always governs with an eye to the next election and thus concerns itself more with keeping itself in power rather than truly governing for the good of the people it represents. Thus, it is reluctant to take "difficult" measures which might make it unpopular, such as those which may be in the bests interests of the society which it governs in the long-term but which may be unpopular in the short-term (measures required to protect the environment are a clasic example here).

A benevolent dictator has no need to worry about electoral success, and so is free to rule for the benefit of all the people. Being benevolent, he or she would be only too willing to do so. And, being wise, he or she would make the correct choices in doing so. Aragorn's rule at the end of the Third Age does indeed represent such a system.

The problem, of course, is that a benevolent dictator is, like Aragorn, a fantasy figure. It may be a cliche, but it is also a truism that powere corrupts and absolute power (which the benevolent dictator has) corrupts absolutely. A benevolent ruler, however well-intentioned to start with, would be hard pressed to remain benevolent. And, however wise, he or she would be hard pressed to always make the correct choices. Moreover, it would be impossible to rule for the benefit of all of the people all of the time, because people have different hopes, aspirations, goals and beliefs. There would always be malcontents who would wish to overthrow the ruler and install themselves in his/her place. This may be something that Tolkien intended to explore within the context of his tale of the Shadow returning in the Fourth Age (which I have not read), although (as I understand it) Tolkien portrays this in terms of the return of evil. In real life, the malcontents are generally not evil (not at the outset, at least), but rather idealists who believe that they can do a better job, based on their own aspirations and beliefs.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

What Tolkien says in this quote is familiar to Brits as the kind of thing the Daily Mail and Telegraph (and most of the people for that matter) might say every few days, how the state is to blame for everything, etc.

I don't think that Tolkien's views in this regard equate to those frequently espoused in the right wing press, which rejects the state when it interferes in ways it considers wrong, yet maniacally calls for yet stricter and more intrusive controls when it perceives them necessary to address wrongs in society (stronger anti-terrorism laws, stricter drugs controls, Megan's law, the death penalty etc etc). The right wing press is inconsistent, whereas I like to think Tolkien was more consistent, in that he rejected the apparatus of the state entirely and would rather have preferred to place the business of running the country in the hands of a recognisable indidviual who could be trusted. So, we're back to the impractical benevolent dictatorship idea again.

For my own part, I differ from Tolkien in accepting the need for a state apparatus but one which recognises individual rights and freedoms and intereferes only where necessary for the protection of individuals and for the benefit of society as a whole, and not where it has no business doing so. I am not sure that Tolkien was quite the libertararian that I am although, from what I have read in his Letters and his stated preference for anarchy, he does seem to have had a libertarian streak in him which, as TGWBS suggests, may well have conflicted with the tenets of his orthodox Catholicism.

And, as Child has suggested, I believe that this "anarchist" streak found its outlet in his portrayal of the Shire. Again, it is an idealised society, with no laws as such but rather customs and practices which all Hobbits respect and subscribe to for the benefit of their society, and where each Hobbit knows, and is satisfied with, his or her place in society. As I said, somewhat idealised, but it certainly has its attractions.

So, I think that Tolkien's ideal from of government finds representation in both Aragorn's rule of the Reunified Kingdom and in the Shire. Although these are very different societies, there are elements common to both. The general acceptance of those "in charge", the "laissez faire" approach to the business of government, the idea of those in charge (albeit loosely so in the Shire) working together with the people for mutual benefit and the absence of any state apparatus. In these regards, perhaps his seemingly conflicting ideals of Absolute Monarchy and Anarchy may be reconciled, or at least combined.