The Presidential Election Law, however, provides that the successor should be nominated by his predecessor, and the name of the successor so nominated is to be locked in the golden box in the stone strong-room.  The President may now, on the one hand, multiply his merits and strengthen his personal influence so that the whole country will gladly bow to his wishes to the extent that even after his death they will not want to disobey his last wish, and on the other hand, the President may quietly ascertain the likely causes which would produce dissension, and take suitable steps to prevent and be rid of them.  If the seed of dissension is in the ordinances, then alter the ordinances so that they may not be used as a tool by possible claimants.  If the seed of dissension is in a person then cultivate that man, lead him to righteousness, place him in a suitable position so that he may be protected from temptation.  Meanwhile let the President carefully select his successor on whom he may eventually lay the responsibilities of State (according to the Presidential Election Law the President is at liberty to suggest any one he likes, his own son or some one else).  Let the nominee be placed in a responsible position so as to bring him to public notice.  Give him real authority so that he may establish his influence.  Place his name at the head of other men of little consequence in the golden box.  Then there will be absolutely no ground for dispute when the time comes to open the box.

If every President will do likewise this system can be used without fear of a break for hundreds of years.  Otherwise we will have only the Imperial system on paper to rely on for assistance, which is not even to be thought of.  A glance through the pages of Chinese history will show the numerous cases in the reign of Emperors when princes fought in the very confines of the Emperor’s palace while the corpse of their royal father lay unburied in the hall.  Thus it is seen that the hidden cause of the safety or otherwise of the country does not lie with the mere formality of a constitution either in a republic or a monarchy.

    VII.  THE CASE OF DIAZ, THE DICTATOR

The critics bring up the example of Mexico where live rivals have been struggling with each other for the presidency, and the internal confusion of the Central and South American republics as well as Portugal, as an unquestionable proof of their contention that a republic is not so good as a monarchy.  I imagine that the idea of these critics is that all these disturbances can be avoided if all these republics were changed into monarchies.  Let me tell them that Diaz ruled over Mexico for thirty years, and only died as an exile in May last (I am not quite sure of the exact month).  If indeed the struggle in Mexico was a fight for succession then the fight should not have begun until this year.  And indeed if it were necessary to have a monarch to avoid the disturbance,