In one of my previous articles, I wrote on how Roman Republic devolved into a Kraterocracy, and first became known Roman Empire and then Byzantine Empire. Now I will write about the opposite process: how countries stop being Kraterocracies. One famous example would be French Revolution but there were a few more before that. Namely Dutch Revolt and more importantly is English Civil War. In fact, English Civil war is probably even more illustrative than French Revolution as there is less distractions on things like Reign of Terror or Napoleonic Wars.
Reasons for the Transition
If Ceasar found riches in Gaul, then Stuart monarchy of England and Scotland found themselves in poverty. King Charles I found it increasingly difficult to pay for maintaining his army, his government and his lifestyle.
To help the issue he called the Parliament to authorize new taxes, but parliament refused. At least refused without getting any further control over how these money will be spent or government that spends them.
That was a compromise King was not willing to accept. He tried to bypass the Parlaiment and levy more money by stealth fees and such, without proper authorization. Public resisted paying these new fees. Revenues were lacking and public grew ever more discontent with King and his actions.
Long series of half measures eventually escalated into Civil War. King decided to enforce his right to rule with force of arms. Parliament responded with force of their own. Parliament won and King was executed.
However fundamental issue that led to the Parliament's Triumph over King was that wealth of civilian merchant class managed to grow significantly wealthier over the previous century or so. Rural land that King and nobility used to deliver their income from stopped being as profitable as international trade from which merchants and sailors have delivered their income.
King wanted share of that wealth, but merchants were not willing to simply let him have it.
This in turn could be traced back to discovery of the New World as well as Dutch revolt, that was partially financed by these discoveries. People who participated in these voyages found vast wealth and figured they would use it to acquire power as well.
There was one other issue. Overtime society grew more complex. Technology became more and more advance. Warfare grew increasingly more dependent on cannons and guns. These weapons had to be manufactured by industrial methods in factories. Because of that, those cities and factories became increasingly more important. So important that even traditional ruler, King had to listen to them.
King of course did not want to share his power with cities, traders and industry, collectively represented by Parliament so he opted for a violent solution.
However, by that time cities were de facto power. English Civil War made their power de jure as well. Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army, build around industrially manufactured weapons triumphed over the good old King's Army of knights and peasant levy.
From Parliamentary Rule to Protectorate
Parlaiment took power, declared England Scotland and Ireland a Commonwealth (a republic) and assumed that they would be in control from there on.
Turned out not so much. It was not a smooth sail from there. Ruling was not as simple as just taking power, Parliament learned it the hard way.
Much like Ceasar eventually found himself to be murdered by Senators who wished to restore republic, Parliament soon found itself at mercy of its own creation, Oliver Cromwell and his New Model Army.
Backed by troops unwavering loyalty of troops and laurels of Civil War victor and nation savior, Cromwell soon found that by now not even Parliament could oppose his rule. So, he reduced Parlaiment to a number of loyalists, then abolished Parliament altogether and ruled essentially as a dictator with even more power than a King used to have.
Cromwell loyalists called for him to simple declare himself King, much how leaders of other revolts did after they won, for example Milanese Sforza family. Cromwell however refused and instead styled himself Lord-Protector. However, difference was in name only. Backed by fame from defeating unpopular King and populace force of habit, Cromwell was even more absolute than King.
Stuart Restoration
Cromwell ruled until he died. New Model Army leaders refused to acknowledge his son as new Lord-Protector. That allowed son of deposed and beheaded Charles I to return to power and reclaim the crown. Things have returned to how they were before the Civil War or did they?
They did not. Kings, wary of the Parliament's power, altered between placating Parliamentary sentiments and trying to shore up their power by eliminating prominent Parliamentarists. Both Charles II and especially James II wanted to make sure the Parliament could never start another Civil War and win it.
However, if Charles II took more conciliatory approach, then James II lead an anti-Parliamentarist witch hunt. Cunningly disguised as religious reconciliation, it was an attempt to place Catholics on all important positions within the state. James II thought that Catholics were more loyal to absolutist monarchial rule and will prevent him losing power to Parliament like Charles I did.
Glorious Revolution
It turned out all James II policies did was angering the Parliament. Parliament then sponsored for Dutch Stateholder Willam of Orange to invade England and take the throne. That happened almost completely unopposed. James II fled; this time his dynasty was gone for good.
Willam and Mary did not have children, so their reign was one off affair. However, the principles of parliamentary rule that were established after Glorious Revolution continue to run the UK and many other nations of former British Empire even today. With some revisions they spread across the world as a liberal democracy.
Parallels with French Revolution
Back in early 18th century French liked to say that something like Parliamentarism could never happen in France. They claimed that French are monarchists to the boot and love their King more than their croissants. History proven them wrong.
French Revolution had a lot of colorful or scary events happened. Appearance wise it looked differently from English Civil War.
However, when it comes to key stages of each of these events, then there are clear parallels.
In both instances it has begun with a dispute between King and Parliament. French Estates General and later National Assembly is essentially a parliament. In both cases parliament won and later asserted its control over the country. In both cases King lost their live.
National Assembly was overshadowed by people like Robespierre and his Commitee of Public Safety, but Robespierre and Commitee was both created by Assembly, answered to it and were eventually deposed and sentenced to death for their crimes by the Assembly.
In both cases parliamentary rule continued until a prominent military leader, who won against the enemies of the revolution, used his popularity to seize dictatorial power. In both cases they opted not to call themselves King, but rather adopt a different title. In contrast to Oliwer Cromwell, Napoleon opted for a grander one, the emperor. However, that is a philological difference only. In essence the power they wielded, and base of that power was the same, fervent popular support.
One might argue that Cromwell was not defeated like Napoleon, but technically Charles II did lead troops against his son, Richard Cromwell. Fundamentally both dictators have fallen, and previous monarchial rule was restored. Both restored monarchies balanced between placating revolutionary sentiment and trying to shore up their position by repressing more radical opponents. Both restored monarchies were initially popular, one key trait Charles II shares with Louis XVIII. Both restored monarchies later grew unpopular under more repressive James II and Charles X and were overthrown again.
Both Glorious Revolution in England and July Revolution in France led towards a parliamentary/assembly rule. Some compromises with the original system were made, however in both cases new Kings were willing to respect parliamentary rule of liberal democracy. Both William of Orange and Louis-Phillippe were loosely related to the deposed monarch, Willam by marriage and Louis-Phillippe was a distant relative.
More Parallels
You can draw even more parallels, for example how Germany went from Empire to Weimar Republic to populist Nazi dictatorship and then back to liberal democracy after WWII.
Modern post-soviet states as well. The difference however that Baltic states had a failed attempt at democracy in interwar era. However, they became prospering democracies after the fall of USSR. The rest of former USSR are at different stages of this transition.
Much of the Eastern Europe faced the same transition in parallel with Baltic States.
Analysis
In all cases first attempt at democracy faced numerous issues and devolved into dictatorship. In many cases that was followed by restoration of previous system.
Reasons for countries to return to previous system after the chaos of transition is trivial, simply to escape chaos and problems.
What is much more puzzling are the reasons why every first attempt ad democracy devolves into dictatorship.
Reasons for that is that, out of habit, people are willing to trust people more than abstract systems. Thus, personalities that obtained enough popular support through their actions or their charisma could easily abolish the system that brought them to power and rule as a dictator. That readily happened in every instance of such transition.
That charisma is also a reason why such dictatorships eventually fell. Richard Cromwell lacked charisma, reputation or achievements of his dad, Oliver Cromwell, so everyone deserted him. The best populist dictator could hope for is lasting for life like Francisco Franco of Spain. Fundamentally a populist dictator would not be able to create a lasting dynasty as his rule would not give his son any opportunity to build his own reputation or charisma.
Populism Aversion Among Democratic Elites
These examples of charismatic leaders propelling themselves to dictatorial powers produced a populism aversion among democratic elites. None of them wants to see another Hitler rise to power on the wave of populism.
That however produces a paradox. A government that supposed to represent people and their interests end up ignoring people's needs and shutting down many popular ideas and proposals out of fear of populism.
Thus, public feel more and more detached from the government and the system that supposed to represent them, yet consistently ignores their needs.
That fundamentally however leads to the same problem the elites fear. The occasional populist politician who managed to strike chord with the crowd manages to get himself elected. Recent Donald Trump victory in the US presidential election is one of such examples.
Media and political class hysteria over his election reflects fears of political elites and their insecurities. That hysteria only further reduces confidence and trust in the system among the people.
However, calling Donald Trump a dictator is a hypocrisy. Populist leaders like Napoleon are not popular because they are dictatorial, they could become dictators only because they have become popular first. Its popularity that gives them their authoritarian power in the first place. Authoritarian power does not make anyone popular by itself.
Fundamental Principle
Fundamentally however a democracy that consistently ignores its people needs and desires is no democracy at all. It's just a bureaucratic rule of the elites, an oligarchy.
However, if elites consistently ignore people, then why people should stay loyal to the system that does not work for them.
That is what governing elites should keep reminding themselves of, if they want to keep their power.
Roman elites of the late republic too ignored their people far too long. This what allowed people like Ceasar and Augustus to take power and keep it.
One can expect people to defend a democracy, but they will not defend an oligarchy even if that oligarchy calls itself democracy.
People will always look for their best interest, be those politicians, political parties or even political systems. Systems needs to evolve to be able to meet this basic principle or be changed. If system fails to respond to people's needs, then people will discard it in favor of something else.
Politicians should stop lecturing people like Hillary Clinton and start listening. Tony Blair did listen and won in 1997.
No comments:
Post a Comment