Monarchism in Maracatibe

 in Maracatibe  is a set of, currents and aimed at or aimed at restoring the monarchical regime in certain areas. Preceding such movements, Maracatibe had several monarchical experiences throughout the several millennia of its recorded history. During the ancient age until the Colonial Era, Maracatibe's monarchical regimes were little questioned, and remained as the predominant form of government.

In the colonial era, the former Maracatibean monarchies became anchor points for nationalist and anti-colonial sentiment, as they were seen as an important part of culture. In this way, several descendants of monarchs became leaders of anti-colonization movements, which aimed to restore the states led by their ancestors. Ordinary people saw in historical figures of the monarchy, ideals of revolution against colonization. Such movements were severely repressed by the colonial lords. On the other hand, whites from Jungastia were generally in favor of the Artemian monarchy.

After independence, there were discussions about the space of the monarchy. Many believed that Maracatibe should be a constitutional monarchy, with a king descending from native monarchies. It was even considered that noble Jungastian (deposed by the Republic of Jungastia in the late 1800s) exiled in Maracatibe could serve as head of state for the new country.

Ancient Age
One of the first monarchies in the world emerged in Maracatibe, having been introduced into the numerous Bangui clans, which spread across the current southeastern region of the country, around the third millennium BCE. Thereafter, monarchies would become the most common form of government among pre-colonial states, coexisting with directorate republics and other minority forms of government.

The monarchy in Maracatibe was not homogeneous, with several states adopting their own variations of the model, such as elective monarchies. The power of monarchs and their name also varied widely, even within the same culture, as in the case of the Bangui. Some cities, like Ekatari, had their monarchs as absolute lords, while in other cities, especially those of the ancient Kwaba, monarchs shared their power with a council of priests, military, other nobles or even with free citizens.

The nature of royal power had different interpretations, most of them religious, which also varied from state to state. Among the Machapi, a civilization that flourished in the southwest of Maracatibe, kings were seen as living gods, endowed with the power to influence the forces of nature, causing rain and floods, for example. Among the Austro-Ingonians, in the northwest, the "level of divinity" of kings varied according to their level. This society was somewhat more tolerant of the deposition of monarchs, because once social instability occurred, it was a sign that mana had already run out, and because it was responsible for the social bond between subjects, the system would fall. Among the Kwaba, and the Bangui in the southeast, kings had some divine properties, as an influence on nature and above-average wisdom. However, they were not gods, but something between gods and mere mortals. Some societies believed that the stage of divinity was reached after the death of the monarch so that, even dead, he could influence the direction of the nation. There were also simpler ties, which said that kings were men chosen by the gods, because they were superior, to rule a territory.

Outside of mythological origin, most historians believe that the monarchy arose through the rise of military leaders. With the growth of the villages, there was a need to choose military commanders to protect the economic assets and the integrity of the individuals in the community. Such commanders began to enjoy great social prestige, and little by little political, until they consolidated their influence, merging with the state and becoming rulers. Many Maracatibean monarchies have also risen through popular support. These were the Tyrants who managed to keep their family in power.

Fragmentation of power
After the expansions of the states, starting with the conquests of Ekatari, in the second millennium BCE, the kings lost the proximity with the community, once they started to govern great extensions of territory. In the meantime, they continued to enjoy absolute power and great prestige. The growth of the territory led to administrative reforms, especially the creation of provinces, generally governed by people trusted by the monarch.

In the case of fragmentation of kingdoms, provincial leaders often remained in power in their respective territories, proclaiming themselves monarchs. The divisions of administrative purpose also caused the power of the king to diminish, in certain occasions, because the local governments started to have great decisions. Such a division of power resulted in a feudal system, more observed in the northern region of the country, in which even though great monarchies continued to exist, kings did not have so much power, which was given to nobles and lords of small territories. Even so, before the arrival of Jungastia, there were still monarchical states with strong central power, such as the Maracatik Empire and Bangui Kingdom, which were absolute monarchies. Feudalism, however, has been in force in the northwest since the fall of the great Empire [] in [].

Therefore, it is noted that the monarchy was based on three pillars: Tradition (the monarchs had some legitimacy, as they descended from respected families, which in the past, helped the nation, either by unifying it, defending it from an external aggressor, or resolving a  crisis), Religion (the power of the kings was endowed with a divine nature, so that the royal blood did not match the blood of the subjects) and Philosophy (several philosophers, used by the monarchs themselves as a base, justified the monarchy's superiority for stability , and that power in the hands of many would cause conflict of personal interests and crises, while kings, prepared to take over the nation, would work for the well-being of the people; these authors believed that the establishment of the unlimited power of kings was derived from a contract  Social).

Opposition to monarchy
Anti-monarchism at that time was strongly influenced by primitive values, which arose in the old age, which aimed at the destruction of the entire post-city-state social organization. The primitive values ​​had some peaks that were distributed until the colonial era, and were characterized by small rebellions and some written productions. The primitivists were anti-hierarchy, defending the collectivism of the villages prior to the Ancient Age of Maracatibe. Therefore, his opposition also applied to republicanism, and later to capitalism (the values ​​of the former primitivist philosophers influenced, for example, Sebastião Rebelo de Melo, utopian socialist thinker).

In addition to the primitivists, the Republicans were also against this regime. They believed that the concentration of power, despite generating stability, can also bring crisis and tyranny. For this reason, they advocated for the systems of elected government, or even non-democratic, but also non-hereditary governments. They generally trusted a directory.