"Hmm…."
Laura turned the page. Every time she read, she'd make a sound like that — "hmm."
I'd thought it was a strange habit and pointed it out once, but Laura had answered that she was "giving herself a suggestion that she'd understood the book." Remarkably, even a genius like her apparently couldn't fully grasp a book in a single read. I supposed it was some kind of technique.
"My lord. Republican treatises keep coming out of the free cities as their base of operations."
"Is that so? Well, the intellectuals have been quite oppressed for a while now, I imagine."
Republicanism was nothing alien to this world. The conditions for it to take root simply hadn't been met before.
"It would be helpful if the thinkers kept producing arguments in support of republicanism. Otherwise the continent could fall into chaos."
"But… it seems like it's hard to pin down any single, clear-cut version of republicanism."
Laura twisted a strand of hair at her temple.
"It appears that the very question of what republicanism *is* has become a matter of debate."
"Oh?"
"Look. This author puts it this way."
Laura held the book open toward me. Her slender finger pointed to a passage that read:
"Care must be taken not to confuse a republican constitutional order with a democratic one."
"First, a state or city-state is classified according to what kind of entity possesses sovereign power: whether a single person possesses it, whether a few combine to possess it, or whether all who form civil society possess it together. — We call these, in order, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy."
"Second, a state or city-state can be classified by the manner of its governance, regardless of the form its ruler takes."
"It is precisely by this manner of governance that we distinguish whether a state is republican or despotic. — Republicanism denotes the separation of legislative power from executive power (the government). In despotism, by contrast, the executive power legislates on its own."
"Therefore, the form of democracy is inevitably despotic."
"…Ehhh?"
A hoarse sound crawled out of my mouth. What kind of novel nonsense was this?
I took the book from Laura and opened it to the next chapter. Sentences written in Habsburgian — a language notorious for being nigh-unreadable — continued to squirm endlessly across the page.
"For example, suppose one person disagrees with a given policy or law. In a democracy, everyone simply ignores that one person and decides on the policy, thus arriving at a decision made not by everyone but by "everyone" — and this, in turn, legitimizes executive power, namely the government."
"And so every society aspiring to republicanism must choose not direct democracy but a representative system of government. Otherwise, those who legislate would simultaneously become those who execute, and state power would degenerate into nothing more than private property."
"All democracies are inevitably bound to follow this course."
"No — democracy actually renders a representative system entirely impossible. This is because every citizen wishes to be the master of the state."
"Monarchy and aristocracy, on the other hand, can at least govern according to the spirit of a representative system — as Consul Elizabeth Habsburg herself once remarked, "I am nothing more than the highest servant of the state.""
"We assert: the fewer the number of people who wield state power — that is to say, the greater the representative character of state power — the closer the state may come to republicanism."
"For this reason, advancing toward a republican state is far more difficult under an aristocracy than a monarchy, and under a democracy, it is possible only through violent revolution..."
"...Neeeeh?"
Another hoarse sound escaped my lips.
The argument was progressing far too convincingly, and it terrified me. What the hell was this? It was genuinely scary. They had even snuck in a quote supposedly from Consul Elizabeth, no less. It was blatant — there was some sort of hidden agenda lurking behind this book.
"...For ordinary citizens, is not the manner of governance incomparably more important than whether the state is a monarchy or a democracy? Monarchy or aristocracy — if the state is not representative but despotic, the people will groan in suffering. The same holds true even for a democracy."
"If, on the other hand, the state is representative — that is, if it faithfully stands in for the will of the people — then the people will not care in the slightest whether the form of the state is monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy."
"Therefore, contrary to the common misconception, a republic is by no means synonymous with a democracy — the two are not even remotely compatible. For a republic to exist, the state must be representative, and for a representative mode of governance to be realized, monarchy is the most suitable form."
"The only difference is that in a "despotic monarchy," the monarch is called a king or emperor, whereas in a "republican monarchy," we call the monarch a consul or president — thereby drawing a subtle yet decisive distinction between the two."
"Wow..."
It was some wonderful nonsense.
I stared, dumbfounded, at Laura. A faint smile of amusement played on her lips.
"What do you think, my lord?"
"How impressive. Humans can become dogs of power with such flawless logic. Truly admirable. Though it's pitiful when they don't realize that the sounds they make are nothing more than a panting dog's wheezing."
What is the difference between a con man and a demagogue?
The con man knows full well that he is pulling a con. He never deceives himself. But the demagogue, while inciting others, simultaneously incites himself.
I am speaking logically, I am not pulling a con, I am honest with myself, I am right… The moment he deceives himself like that, he becomes nothing more than a demagogue. A second-rate one at that. Even among villains, he'd be nothing but a low-level thug.
What would happen if someone genuinely believed that something in this world was truly right?
In that regard, he would become incapable of lying. A vulnerability — the one point where a con man cannot run his con. The result is simple. Another con man, one who doesn't believe that point is right, will eventually exploit it and devour him…
A con man must always remain the one pulling the con, never the one being conned.
The same applies when the target is himself. What's the point of being conned by oneself? Whether it's logical rhetoric or emotional rhetoric, it's unsightly either way.
"Whether it's a republic or a democracy, the notion that state power won't be privatized is laughable in itself. People are always searching for something they can call their own. That is simply human nature."
I pulled out a cigarette and lit it. The acrid smell made my lungs churn.
"There is nothing to blame or grieve over. Think about it. We consider our lives to be our own. But how can life ever belong to us? We were merely born by the will of something else."
I exhaled a puff of smoke.
"So everyone goes searching for what they can call their own. Some claim their face, others their lover, others works of art, others wealth, others a beautiful ideal…"
Jack surfaced in my mind, but I ignored him.
Running into him in dreams was more than enough.
"These dust specks that have nothing to call their own somehow scrape together junk with their bare hands, only to vanish shortly after. The junk among all junk is power. The single most enormous pile of junk in the entire world, so to speak."
What you say can kill people.
When you decide on policy, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of humans cling to it and bring it to reality.
"Do you understand, Laura? The perspective was flawed from the very start. The question isn't whether power gets privatized or doesn't. Power is already privatized by its very nature — it is a thing that must be privatized. The dust specks that cling to it like starving ghouls, trying to make it their own, those are politicians."
Therefore, republicanism does not focus on how to make power more representative.
It all hinges on how you render power into a useless object.
"For instance, establishing oversight bodies would be one method. You make the agencies constantly surveil one another. Power needs to be distributed as widely as possible so it can't be monopolized. In that respect, a republic is at least compatible with democracy."
Just as the author of this book said. In a democracy, everyone scrambles to become the master.
The result, in practice, is a political system where no one is master at all.
"Also, you'd have to set fixed terms for each agency head. Once appointed, they serve for life? That's absurd. That way, the only abnormal person would be the one who *doesn't* try to make power their own. Ten years is already too long. Five years is still too much."
"But, my lord."
Laura listened quietly to my explanation, then tilted her head.
"A perfect balance in the world is impossible. Wouldn't one of those agencies inevitably grow to dominate the others over time?"
"Exactly. It's nothing more than a stopgap."
Cigarette smoke drifted slowly toward the ceiling.
"So you just have to make power itself disappear."
"......"
"Kill them all, and the problem is solved simply enough. Well, Laura — there's no need for us to become republicans 'out of nowhere,' is there? What I've been describing is what we'd do *if* we became republicans."
I happen to be very fond of privatized power. You could even say I love it.
With power, I can order someone to die in my place. Right now, upstairs in the dungeon, monsters are dying by the dozens against the adventurer parties. With power, I can also grant my subordinates what they desire.
"So our objective is simple. We eliminate the powers that are stronger than us and hostile toward us."
"It really is refreshingly simple."
Laura smiled.
"My lord speaks the truth. Figuring out how to make power peaceful and eternal — that's someone else's burden to worry about."
Laura rose from her seat and drifted over to me. She wrapped her hands around my neck and brought her face close. Without anyone making the first move, we shared a light kiss.
"But my lord, doesn't that leave us with far too little hope?"
"There is hope. It simply isn't hope for us."
"I heard that in Franc, Queen Henrietta de Bretagne is building an empire."
I let Laura's hair slip through my fingers. The softness of it. It felt good.
"It's time for her to settle the score from three years ago. Don't you think the moment has come?"
"I trust you haven't been completely shattered yet. If you go up against her again, you'll only break once more."
"Hmm, you're right. If I acted alone, all I'd reproduce is the battle of the Saint-Denis Plains."
I pressed my lips to Laura's pale forehead.
"But I do happen to have a self-proclaimed, widely acknowledged genius strategist on my side."
"Oh my."
She raised her eyebrows with an air of perfect nonchalance.
"So you're ordering a young lady to simultaneously take on the most powerful human ruler on the continent and the most powerful Demon Lord in the Demon Realm?"
"Frankly, I didn't like the sight of those women breathing. And as it happens, I've racked up a debt with Paimon. Let's put it to good use."
Laura let out a quiet chuckle.
"Understood, my lord. I am your sword. No matter which queen stands as your enemy, I will sever her head and present it to you."
That May, a summit was convened in Niflheim.
I, Dantalion — ranked a mere seventy-first — had called the entire assembly to gather.