Does having a Nobility lead to higher political stability?

Discussion in 'Political Science' started by kazenatsu, Aug 24, 2018.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    11,523
    Likes Received:
    3,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Does having a nobility, or at least an upper middle class, in a society lead to a higher degree of political stability, and ultimately help ensure more freedom for everyone?

    The less centralized power is in a government, the more enduring and stable it is.

    When there is a large group of people of a surplus of time and financial resources at their disposal, many of these individuals will take an interest in politics, and even attempt to have some influence on government. One could say that it really takes the existence of a nobility for a country to be democratic. Yes, it's also important to have an informed citizenry, but there also needs to be a few people with the means to play a stronger role.

    Look at the history in the U.S. Many office holders came from what could be described as the upper middle class, or families with a lot of money.

    Obviously there are some downsides to having a society that is so much run by nobility, such as the people making the decisions being out of touch with the needs of the poor, but there are some values common to all, such as civil liberties.

    Then there are values of the nobility that get imprinted on the rest of society.


    The more centralized financial resources are, the easier it will be for political movements to be organized.

    Obviously creating a nobility may not be the most efficient way to do this, since the majority of the wealth is going to be superfluous and not directed towards political ends, but the existence does serve a function. From the standpoint of a political structure, it's very important in whose hands the resources and power is in.

    If you look throughout the history of Europe, the first council of voting bodies (progenitor democracies you could call it) were composed of the nobility, and exercised a check against the power of the king.

    A middle class, in general, is too busy to get too involved in politics. Very few individuals in the middle class have both the time and money to do so. (Until they reach their retirement years, but by then they're often too old to do many things) It's true that retired middle class people exert a huge political influence with their votes, but there is less tendency for them to organize themselves into a powerful political body. That might requiring hiring some full-time employees, frequent travel across different parts of the country, compilation of lots of information, it's just not so likely to happen. Middle class people make donations to political parties, but most of the donations come from the more wealthy.
     
  2. Spooky

    Spooky Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    28,298
    Likes Received:
    11,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No.

    It is dependent on what the nobility or the leaders of a society do that dictates how stable it will be.

    They have to address the needs of their populace, whatever those may be, or their grip on power will crumble.

    This is, of course, determined by their ability to maintain control through power but even that will eventually wear out.

    So really it's only a determination of time that is the question.
     
  3. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    28,638
    Likes Received:
    6,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know if having a titled nobility adds to stability, but having a large, stable middle class certainly does. I suspect that as the US loses it's middle class it will become more and more politically unstable.
     
  4. unkotare

    unkotare Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2019
    Messages:
    1,191
    Likes Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    A nobility is NOT a middle class, and does NOT add stability.
     
  5. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    11,523
    Likes Received:
    3,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If a middle class can add stability, why can't a very upper tier middle class not add stability? Especially when that class is very decentralized in power. Isn't the nobility basically a class in the middle between the king (or political elites) and everyone else?

    They're basically a "middle class" (or sorts) with an extreme amount of financial resources. Not to mention a wealth of both money combined with a surplus of time, which is rare in other cases. It's that combination that drives the creation of culture and art.
    (And probably why middle class Switzerland never really developed its own high culture historically, despite a high average standard of living)

    One does not have to approve of a nobility to be able to appreciate the positives it contributed to society.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2019
  6. DavidMK

    DavidMK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,818
    Likes Received:
    283
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Nobility is UPPER class by definition. I don't think you understand what it actually is.
     
    unkotare likes this.
  7. The Rhetoric of Life

    The Rhetoric of Life Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2017
    Messages:
    7,496
    Likes Received:
    2,113
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You mean, does having a class system stabilise a class system based society?

    I'm going to say yes.
     
  8. The Rhetoric of Life

    The Rhetoric of Life Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2017
    Messages:
    7,496
    Likes Received:
    2,113
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Aristocracy is just upper class, and; The rich need the poor.
     
  9. Dissily Mordentroge

    Dissily Mordentroge Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What do you mean by ‘nobility’? A hereditary collection of the privileged? A moral and intellectual elite fantasised about in Plato’s Republic?
    Something as absurd as the present Whitehouse inhabitants?
    If you mean something like the British Royal Family a brief examination of their history reveals they’ve often been anything but dignified or moral, let alone noble.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2019
  10. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    11,523
    Likes Received:
    3,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All I'm saying is that if you don't have a strong thriving upper class, the society is eventually going to devolve into an autocracy (or possibly even a virtual political plutocracy like exists in China).

    In other words, if wealth is not unequal, political power will end up even more unequal.

    In Russia today they don't have an upper class, they have an oligarchy.
    (somewhat similar to an upper class but where wealth and influence is even far more concentrated)
    Sometimes compromises that you may feel are less than ideal provide an adequate safeguard against something that is even worse.

    I'm not sure that more equal democracies really work long-term, except in very small countries, like Iceland.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2019

Share This Page