Whether monarchy is the best form of governance is a complex and subjective question. Monarchies can offer stability, unity, and continuity, but they also raise concerns about equality, accountability, and public participation. Absolute monarchies, in which rulers hold significant power, may ensure political stability yet risk suppressing democratic processes and civil liberties. Many people, however, pay little attention to the type of governing system under which they live.
Constitutional monarchies, where the monarch serves as a symbolic head of state, have adapted well to modern democratic norms, providing stability without undermining democratic institutions. The impact of monarchy on governance depends on historical, cultural, and political context. Monarchies that integrate democratic principles tend to promote stability, while those that resist change may face long-term challenges.
The Israelite Pattern
The concept of monarchy traces back to the Israelites, but it was not God’s idea. Influenced by group mentality, they demanded a king like the other nations of their time. God had intended them to be a model nation under His authority, and His principle was never to dictate. He granted their request without abandoning them (1 Samuel 8). The virtue of theocracy is that it keeps the people attuned to God.
From a human perspective, the first king was Saul, who failed to lead according to God’s laws. Later, God worked with David, whose selection initially did not match the people’s expectations, but God was pleased with his heart. In His patience, and through the descendants of David, God demonstrated His mercy through kings who either obeyed or disobeyed His laws, maintaining His promises to bless or curse the nation depending on its leadership.
Through this pattern, and depending on the king in power, God sought to prove that He alone should be regarded as the sovereign authority in matters of governance. Whenever a good king ruled, God blessed the nation. David pleased God, but his successor Solomon did not, leading to the division of the kingdom. From then on, the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel declined into obscurity, beginning with Israel and later with the Jews.
The first time God abandoned Israel marked the beginning of this downfall and the abandonment of God’s covenant with the Israelites, ending in their capture by their enemies. The story of the Israelites now exists only in history books. The pattern of blessing or cursing any nation, depending on the authority in power, continues even in our time.
Democracy, Responsibility, and Zimbabwe
Modern nations are largely governed democratically, with the only flaw possibly being a lack of moral or spiritual grounding among the people. Democracy means that the governing authority is subject to the will of the people. If the majority are self-centered, they are likely to elect a self-centered leader; conversely, if they are altruistic, they will choose an altruistic leader.
Zimbabwe, once a British colony, shares some failures with its former colonizer, since the culture of the formerly colonized ought to reflect the character of those who formerly colonized them. If Britain had been a benevolent colonial power, it would have left a positive legacy by instilling democratic principles among its former colonies.
Britain is admired by some nations and disliked by others because of its colonial history. Its flaw lies in failing to instill civility in the people it colonized, since humanity, in its intrinsic nature, ought to understand the principle of responsibility. Once granted independence, former colonies cannot continue to blame Britain; they must take responsibility for governing themselves. Instead of focusing on racial perspectives regarding the former colonialists, scrutiny should be placed on new leadership.
Failures stem from a misunderstanding, among voters, of the difference between a monarchy and a republic. Those they voted for adopted monarchical attitudes instead of servant leadership. This undermined the principle of democracy, leaving the country under monarchical rule while claiming to be a republic. Many citizens view leaders as ordained by God rather than elected, indicating a lack of proper education, even among the educated.
Our failures may not come from those in government but rather from a majority of voters who are unwilling to take responsibility for matters of governance. This stems from a misunderstanding between a republican state and a monarchy. People not only revere the head of state but also treat their MPs and local counselors as monarchical figures. The concept of personal responsibility as electors feels foreign to them. They believe they are electing kings to rule over them, which explains the ongoing confusion in leadership.
Britain, Colonialism, and Hypocrisy
Resentment toward Britain often reinforces perceptions of its superiority among complaining Africans. The emotional hostility shown by so-called revolutionaries can be hypocritical, as seen with the late former Zimbabwean President Mugabe. Despite publicly expressing hatred for Britain, Mugabe embraced all things English during his rule. His uncritical supporters enjoyed this contradiction, unaware of his true nature. They idolized him even as he cherished the English language and its monarchical traditions.
For instance, to those aware, his verbal attack on former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was insincere, revealing a hidden affection for Britain—much like a jilted lover badmouthing someone they truly admire. Outsiders unfamiliar with the truth perceived his animosity as genuine, mistaking bitterness for true hatred. The British monarchy has long stood as a governing system that has evolved over centuries, with roots tracing back to pagan traditions.
While Britain is often seen as a Christian nation, this is more in name than in practice, as it tends to follow worldly pagan trends. Clinging to worldly traditions can be seen as a form of paganism, whereas true Christianity involves a commitment to Christ’s teachings. Many nations call themselves Christian but are, in reality, deeply rooted in hypocrisy.
But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honour his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “‘This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’” (Matthew 15:5–9 NIV).
The English monarchy is rooted more in tradition than in Christianity, despite the Church of England’s role in coronations. While it may draw loosely from ancient Jewish monarchies, it is not directly tied to Christian faith. Such traditions can be intriguing, but true Christians are not swayed by ceremonial displays. Britain is among the few nations still upholding monarchical customs, which younger generations often view with amusement or curiosity, without scrutinizing their pagan origins.
These traditions persist largely due to nostalgia among the British public. Some Africans criticize Britain for its colonial past, seeing the English as more racist than other races. Interestingly, a rumor of Kuwait enslaving blacks from poorer countries does not provoke as much outrage as would be directed toward the West. Yet documented abuses in Kuwait are sometimes attributed to European nations, even though today those Western countries have laws against racism and mistreatment of others.
There may be racists among their communities, but their government policies outlaw racism. My sincere question is why black people ordinarily hate those from the West more than they ought to hate the Chinese, for instance. Blacks are willing to swallow whatever forms of propaganda come from those manipulating their ignorance. There appears to be propaganda in the common accusation that Britain looted most African wealth to empower the empire.
The indefensible claim is that Africans lacked knowledge of how to manage the mineral wealth in their territories and were too uneducated to govern themselves. Looting was likely aided by greedy African monarchical admirers. As terrible as slavery was, Africans were not its only victims; the Bible mentions the Pharaohs of Egypt engaging in slave trading as well.
Looting continues to be practiced even today, unchecked, due to monarchical considerations by uneducated voters. Historically, slavery was practiced by stronger nations against weaker ones, facilitated by the monarchs of those weaker nations. Uneducated Africans may have been more susceptible to slavery than other nations, though this should not be taken as justification for it. Those who dwell excessively on their enslavement compared to others may remain trapped in a state of slavery, with nothing positive emerging from such a mindset.
The British may have subjugated various races but were not necessarily more evil than others. What truly matters is allowing people to think freely, which is impeded by monarchical considerations. Indeed, some people may react emotionally when challenged about the belief that Africans suffered more than others. However, there is truth in that all humans carry the problem of greed, but the true weakness of any nation is facilitated by monarchical considerations, where ordinary people are not allowed to exercise responsibility in matters of governance.
We should distinguish between emotional and analytical opinions. British history is undeniably marred by colonialism, particularly its treatment of Africans. Yet no nation in the entire world can claim it has never been mistreated by others. Historically, the English themselves emerged from the oppression of other nations. What has made that country appear civilized is the adoption of democratic principles, even while clinging to monarchical traditions. The real strength of any nation, therefore, lies in allowing citizens to determine their destiny without monarchical considerations.
The history of humanity cannot be told without the themes of conquest and being conquered by different peoples, where the conquerors were made rulers. Likewise, it would be impossible for the British to claim pure racial lineage. The world is rapidly moving toward diminishing racial identity, despite those still clinging to outdated monarchical views. Who can truly claim to be of pure breed, given the prevalence of intermarriages through the ages?
I would be dishonest if I ignored my own independent opinion on such matters. Aligning with those hostile to the British does not match my intellectual perspective. I may lack deep historical knowledge on colonialism, but having grown up under the Rhodesian government, I knew Smith faced opposition from Britain. I also recognized the racist tendencies of some white individuals, but these are slurs that are common to all humans.
Some whites indeed treated blacks inhumanely, but I have also seen blacks treat their fellow blacks poorly. Of paramount importance is allowing people to think independently without monarchical interference, rooted in the outdated tribalism of past centuries, if order is to be restored. I find it unreasonable to suggest whites are inherently more evil than blacks. I firmly believe hatred and bitterness only breed more evil—there is no other outcome. In monarchies, the main appeal lies in uniting people under a shared tradition, but this usurps free thinking by ordinary citizens.
Group Identity, Idolatry, and Free Thought
Humanity often feels vulnerable without a common cultural bond. The British monarch serves as a symbol of unity, though any national emblem could fulfill that role. People rally around symbols that provide identity; the Tower of Babel was one such example, though God intervened with a greater plan for humanity (Genesis 11:1–9). Agreement can sometimes override reason, meaning collective thinking may lack common sense when driven by reactive minds.
Americans unite under their Constitution and the ideal of freedom. The Temple brought Jews together in Jerusalem, while Muslims are united by the Quran. Whatever unites Russians has fueled their invasion of Ukraine. In China, unity comes from the Chinese Communist Party, and EU nations are connected through Roman Catholic heritage and a shared currency.
Africans strive for Pan-Africanism but face setbacks from tribal divisions. Julius Malema stands out for championing this cause, alongside its advocate, Professor Lumumba of Kenya. Many Africans, however, seem to dwell on the notion of being victims of slavery and colonialism, thereby desiring to reset outdated monarchical considerations instead of being allowed to think freely. Progress could come from abandoning victimhood and taking responsibility in matters of governance.
Some African countries seem to be making progress in good governance, and one can only hope that the approach taken by Zambia’s current leader, Hakainde Hichilema, will spread across the continent. Such a path could help Africans reclaim their dignity. Identity has always been a major concern for humanity, and this extends into Christianity, where people often feel secure within a particular church doctrine under specific monarchical leadership.
A shared belief can bring people together into groups for a sense of security, galvanized by a monarchical consideration. This kind of unity reflects the idea of a stable datum. For example, Seventh-day Adventists rally around Sabbath keeping, Pentecostals around speaking in tongues, and Baptists around the practice of water baptism—each supported by scripture.
Across relationships, humanity is held together by these stable-datum doctrines, which often stem from cultural traditions. Agreements like these offer survival value by providing mental stability, but they block free thinking among those concerned. In Zimbabwe, liberation fighters were united by the spirit of Mbuya Nehanda, though most did not fully understand its aspirations beyond opposing white supremacy. The nation could unite under this spirit and perhaps thrive, yet without evidence of its current relevance.
Ultimately, these grouping ideologies, emanating from monarchical traditions, reflect the nature of idolatry. God hid Moses’ burial site to prevent it from becoming a shrine, as God knew the real cause of the idolatrous mentality. Had the burial site been known, it would likely still be treated as holy today. The only real survival value in idolatry is the stability it gives the mind, but it remains a form of folly that has long plagued humanity, as it once did the Israelites.
Without customs and traditions—often stemming from idolatrous monarchies and offering a sense of mental stability—people would be freer. The cause of such idolatrous monarchies is insecurity without God. Lacking a group to belong to creates insecurity, though God did not intend it that way. Traditions emerged after the Garden of Eden incident. People are seldom pushed away from their group’s beliefs, but they can be persuaded to unite around group traditions.
While group affiliation may foster survival instincts, it cannot guarantee lasting security. The Israelites formed a group through which God worked, yet one of the Ten Commandments warned against worshipping other gods before the living God. Prioritizing their Israelite identity over faith in God amounted to idolatry. Their history of highs and lows shows that God often used one or two individuals to guide them back to repentance.
There is no record of a group collectively deciding to repent after turning away from God—it was always an individual who stepped up, whether a prophet or a leader. At one point, God used Deborah, a woman, but the Israelites still fell into idolatry as a group. Their collective mindset even pushed Aaron to make a golden calf when Moses delayed returning from speaking with God. This shows that their rebellion came from a group mentality.
Often, one influential figure could lead the whole group into idolatry, just as it took a single person committed to God’s principles to persuade others to repent. Such people naturally became leaders. The Israelites’ pattern of rising and falling reflects human nature, which tends to act under influence rather than reason, merging into a unified group. God’s rejection often stemmed from this group mindset, but salvation would come through one person willing to rise above it. When the entire group feared Goliath, God used a young boy, David, to deliver them.
David’s courage was not shaped by the group’s opinion but by God’s will. The true reason came from God’s word, not the collective viewpoint. The real trap lies in failing to recognize one’s individual identity, which does not come from group thinking but from knowing oneself as God’s child, as Jesus revealed in Matthew 16:13–20.
Jesus declared Himself to be the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). God calls individuals, not groups, and it can be disheartening to see an entire group fail to grasp His truth. Freedom is possible when people think independently, without monarchical considerations. Such failure often comes from following a leader blindly, due to a group mentality evolving from monarchical considerations. Rising above the group to obey God is one of the greatest achievements for true Christians, who should then influence those in their surroundings.
Andrew Masuku is the author of Dimensions of a New Civilisation, which lays out standards for lifting Zimbabwe out of its current economic depression and into a model for other nations worldwide. A decaying tree provides an opportunity for a blossoming sprout. Written from a Christian perspective, the book is a product of inspiration, offering relief to those who have witnessed the strings of unworkable solutions leading to the current economic and social decay. Most Zimbabweans should find the book to be a long-awaited providential oasis of hope, in a simple conversational tone.
The Print copy is now available at Amazon.com for $13.99
Also available as an e-copy at Lulu.com for $6.99