User logged in as GSS
I am always a little surprised when new monarchies such as this one seem to gain support purely because they were monarchies. If the late president of Syria Hafez al-Assad had proclained himself King in 1971, would monarchists now be rallying round his wretched son?
Zog was an extraordinary figure in some ways, but really not much different to "Emperor" Bakassa - a president who decided he preferred Imperial Majesty to your Excellency and wasted a lot of the state's money in bringing this a kind of cheap hollywood glitz.
Zog managed to escape with his life (and the state treasury) when his country was invaded by Italy, but one cannot seriously propose that the Zogou monarchy had deep roots. Albania had never been a sovereign monarchy, but had been irregularly governed by the heads of several clans who were paid off periodically by Venice, Byzantium and the Ottomans. Its very brief experiment with the Wied monarchy in 1914 can hardly have laid the seeds of long-term monarchist sentiment.
I personally feel Leka's self-proclamation as king was ridiculous and see no reason to suppose that a "restoration" of this "dynasty" that lasted on the throne for no more than 1/3rd of the time of Al Assad or Gaddafi "dynasties", should garner support from anyone who believes constitutional monarchy to be a superior form of government to republics.
If monarchy does not have the necessary historical roots to give it authority, a direct association with the nation's history and independence from partisan politics than it is hard to justify.
Message Thread | Skip to this response ↓
« Back to index