POLITICAL ‘ISMs’ OF HISTORY
- Martin Gooding
- Jul 10, 2021
- 30 min read
Updated: Jul 12, 2021
This list of historical political ‘isms’ is meant as a prequel to my list of ‘Twenty-two political isms’ in which I hoped to briefly define the politics of modern times. I thought it might be interesting to explore the pre-cursors to these political theories and their ultimate foundations in human nature.
With these descriptions I hope to analyse the interplay between oligarchy, despotism and democracy that has been going on throughout human history, and possibly reveal something about the psychology of human society. It will seem obvious to most of us that society needs a hierarchy – or a multitude of them – to hold itself together. The basic questions of politics have always been: how do we decide who is in this hierarchy? how much power should the rest of us have over the hierarchy? and what method should the hierarchy use to distribute resources, and define the work we do?
Very generally these questions can be answered in three ways. In an oligarchy the members of the hierarchy will decide who is admitted to it, and decide what the hierarchy does. There will be a leader of the hierarchy, but everybody in it will have some room for manoeuvre and it will be somewhat of a joint enterprise. The hierarchy will make decisions that are good for the hierarchy, but will have to keep everybody else in mind as it will be in the self-interests of some hierarchs to side with the people.
In a despotism there will be an all powerful figure at the top of the hierarchy, who will decide on its complexion and what it should do. The leader will make decisions that are good for the people in general as far as he is concerned.
In a more democratic system the hierarchy will be selected by - and therefore have its decisions guided by - the community in general. In a historical context ‘more democratic’ does not mean ‘one person, one vote’ – there are other ways of discovering the community’s wishes. As the modern era has drawn on, organising democracies has become easier and they have become more democratic. Most modern systems demand at least some democratic input.
In any particular society these systems are often combined in different strengths. There are historical examples where societies are run by one of these systems exclusively, but the best political foundations are generally a mixture. Each of these systems have to be kept within a context of the conventions and customs of the people or nation involved – the population will generally expect tradition to be adhered to and the hierarchy will usually be drawn from that population.
Many of these traditions were once religious in nature. At its heart, religion was not a fantasy constructed by the ruling class to guarantee the subjugation of the rest – although it could operate like that – but instead an agreed upon moral structure backed up by instructive, or at least interesting, stories. In a world with no police forces and little education it was in the self interest of each individual to act according to society’s rules. It is not surprising that in some societies heresy and disagreement were taboo.
I have attempted to list these pre-industrial political ‘isms’ in the chronological order that they appeared. The concepts tend to develop organically, either growing from the previous ones or being provoked by opposition to them.
I have concentrated on European history rather than that of the world, and there are two reasons for this: Firstly, listing all of the political ideas that were ever conceived of would be a mammoth task, and would involve a lot of repetition. Secondly, the way politics works in the present world is based almost entirely on Western political thought, which has replaced or become merged with ancient political ideas from various different cultures. Where European ideas are similar to historical systems elsewhere I have mentioned it, and the first few primitive ‘isms’ on the list are universal in scope.
1. Patriarchy
In prehistoric times each small human settlement was dominated by one clan – although it would also include ‘in laws’ and probably various hangers-on. The leader of the settlement was the father of the clan. The obvious reason for the domination of a male is his superior upper body strength and penchant for aggression when compared to females. But this is not quite a reasonable explanation, for patriarchy continued throughout human history in civilisations where the ruler did not need to be a military strong man – so why so few female rulers? This is a mystery, and it appears to be a part of human nature – the need for aggression is not the answer - for even primitive settlements were at not war all of the time. Neither does misogyny make sense.
2. Tribalism
Due to the agricultural revolution the nature of settlements changed – it became impossible for one clan to dominate them. A kind of anarcho-democracy ensued where leadership could be acquired through acquiring a following in the community, through strength, courage and wisdom. In some tribal societies the leadership candidates of a settlement would whittle each other down (either violently or not) until there was one who became chief. In others a number of leaders would form a tribal council. In some societies land was parcelled out to families on the basis of need, in others the leaders would become the landlords and form the ruling class. Often, a number of settlements would follow a regional tribal king, so they could act together and achieve some semblance of security. In tribalism there was always an implicit freedom – chieftains could not be forced to follow kings and the people often could not by forced to obey chieftains. A community’s membership of a tribe usually differentiated them from non-members, and could often lead to suspicion or opposition to non-members – they were not designated as ‘friends’. A good argument against anarchy is that our hierarchies grew out of anarchy, and if we were to reinstate such a system the same thing would be likely to happen again.
3. Ancient Theocracy
This was the system of government used in the ancient civilisations of the Middle East, and quite possibly among the ancient tribes of Europe – such as the people who built the stone circles. It was essentially a type of tribalism where priests rose to the leadership positions due to their closeness to the gods. As the community would sacrifice food and wares in the temple in order to satisfy the gods, the priesthood would acquire a large portion of the resources and could win control through re=distribution.. The priesthood would often attract the wisest of the community as members, and could act as an organising force. Sometimes – as in the case of Egypt – priests would follow an imperial godhead in leading a nation.
4. Monarchy / Aristocracy
It was often the case that the son of a tribal leader would follow his father. Not only did it cut down on the amount of divisive competition over who was to succeed but the son would often be trained in leadership skills by his father. Furthermore, the son or sons may inherit the land of the community. Primogeniture was a further way of restricting conflict. Monarchy came with the implicit admission that the monarch was dependent on the mightier of his subjects and would therefore seek their advise and co-operation. The evolution of monarchy led to the increased importance of land ownership, for the leader would have to feed his warriors with a harvest. Land owning aristocrats asserted rights over the non-land owning common folk. Aristocrats might follow a king as the tribal chieftains had, or possibly form a council to rule a tribe or city. The freedoms of tribalism were restricted as warriors swore loyalty to aristocrats and monarchs in order to be looked after and achieve glory, giving these leaders the advantage of greater physical force over everybody else.
5. Classical Democracy
This was a phenomena of classical Greece which arrived with advances in bronze working, most famously in Athens. New weapons and combat techniques created the phalanx of conscripted soldiers. As all of the citizens of a city had a duty to defend it, and the city was dependent on them for survival, they managed to wrest power from the aristocrats and kings. Each citizen had the right to vote in the city assembly, but this did not include women, slaves or foreigners. The operation of the assembly was quite different from a modern parliament. What we might call ‘parties’ were selected by lot, and each party would vote separately on a particular issue before adding its whole number to a block vote in the assembly. In Athens there was no official leader of the city – although Pericles became leader in all but name through his influence over the assembly – instead, various officials were selected by lot to hold responsibility for various areas. The assembly itself formed the court.
6. Despotism / Tyranny
In classical Greece, during the emergencies of the Peloponnesian Wars and after, tyrants rose to rule many of the cities. Polarising divisions in the citizens assemblies led to violence and revolutions under the leadership of various demagogues. Tyrants were at first populist, they brought back security and order. But in most cases they exhibited criminal behaviour and became murderous in their efforts to stay in power. Despotism is a similar concept but was successful in societies not used to the freedoms of classical Greece, and therefore despots were not prone to such desperate criminality. The whole collective is loyal to the despot – or has their loyalty forced on them – therefore undermining the unfair advantages of the aristocracy. The despot will achieve his position either by accident of birth or through support within the army, so his selection could be viewed as a partial lottery. Unlike a monarch, despots were not supposed to be dependent on anybody, they were magically authoritative and could therefore rule rationally. Many civilisations around the globe have embraced despotism at one stage or another.
7. Platonic Technocracy
The Athenian philosopher Socrates was cynical about democracy, and this is what got him executed for sedition. His pupil Plato took things a step further in his book ‘The Republic’ (written c.375bc), where he set out what he felt was the best governmental system. A detached ‘philosopher-king’ would select the ‘guardians’ of the polis according to their natures. A legislator class would arrange marriages and child care as well as criminal justice, soldiers would enforce the system as well as protect the polis, and traders would acquire the luxuries needed for the good life. Everybody else would be either peasants or labourers. Plato is often accused of suggesting the tyranny that he thought democracy inevitably led to, but argued his ‘republic’ would bring happiness as everybody would be able to act according to their natures. He was the first to suggest gender equality. The closest reality came to a Platonic technocracy was in imperial China, where a strong civil service developed early on. The technocrats had to pass examinations based on Confucian principles to prove they were qualified to rule.
8. Citizenship
The Greeks had invented citizenry as a class of legal equals – but the term ‘citizen’ was not applied to everybody. The Romans extended and adapted the concept by offering partial – or occasionally full – citizenship to conquered subjects. This would allow them to trade with Romans or marry Romans, and gave them what could very anachronistically be called ‘human rights’ under Roman law. In return they had to fight for Rome. At this time – in the fourth century bc – Rome had acquired hegemony over the Latins and were expanding in Italy due to the Samnite Wars. The city had risen to become a trading and political centre and gaining access to it was a distinct advantage. By classing conquered subjects as at least partially Roman they were beginning to form a larger, homogenous population they could rely upon, rather than having to negotiate with various groups – or keep them subjugated – to get things done.
9. Plebeianism
The Roman senate started off as the tribal council of Rome. It was made up of the more powerful landlords, known as ‘patricians’. These patricians had a rather derogatory view of the ‘plebs’, whose label implied that they had no use to wider society and worked only for their own survival. However, in a series of ‘secessions’ in the fourth century bc, the plebs left the city, set up camp outside it and refused to work. The patricians were actually dependent on the plebs for military service and food supply. This way the plebs won rights: A Citizens’ assembly was given the right to pass laws proposed by any senator, the citizens would elect tribunes who could veto acts by the senate, and senators who fell below a certain wealth threshold had to stand for election by the citizens every year. Oligarchy was tempered by democracy. The direction of plebeianism changed drastically in the late republic. Citizen conscripts spent so much time away fighting in the Second Punic War that they found their smallholdings overgrown and useless when they returned. They were forced to sell up to the patrician class who used a plentiful supply of slaves to do the farming. The population of unemployed in Rome soared, and the plebeian party began to demand land reform and limitations on slave-owning. It made sense to the plebs to support military strong men against the senate. Julius Caesar was the last of these, and the most successful. He bought the leadership of the plebeian party with loot from Gaul, then defeated Pompey, the protector of the patricians. In effect the plebs supported an anti-political popular despotism: This was the later inspiration for Mussolini in his creation of Fascism. Caesar was assassinated in 44bc before he could enact his reforms.
10. Patricianism
The patrician party stood for the continuation of the traditional republic in Rome, against tyranny, and opposed to the plebs. They always controlled the senate. They had brought in Pompey Magnus to protect the senate after the dictator Marius had seized power in the name of the plebs. Marius’s opponent Sulla had unleashed a reign of terror on the patricians as well as the Marians. After Caesar’s defeat of Pompey, it was the patricians that conspired at his assassination to ‘save Rome’. But Caesar’s successors managed to co-operate enough to defeat the patrician rebel army after the assassination. This led to the creation of empire – Caesar’s grand nephew Octavian (also known as Augustus) ended up as the sole surviving military strong man. But for its first two centuries the Roman Empire could think of no other way to run the state other than by the senate – the senate and the patricians survived as an executive council but with the emperor having the last say on everything. This could be described as an early form of constitutionalism. Later emperors nodded to their plebeian support by gradually expanding citizenship, but the patricians remained as an imperial court. In the later centuries of the empire the senate was sidelined and the emperors became straight-forward despots.
11. Militocracy
In the Roman ‘Third Century Crisis’ the empire was plagued by a succession of revolts and invasions. An exhausting war in the east had made the empire more dependent than ever on the legionaries, who proceeded to extort higher and higher remuneration from the state. There were a long succession of imperial assassinations and coups – 25 emperors in 75 years. Commanders – usually from quite humble backgrounds – were catapulted to the top where they sought to deliver the army’s demands as well as deal with the chaos, and nearly always failed. Rome was saved by Aurelian, one of the ‘gentlemen emperors’ – generals of the patrician class who allied themselves with the senate. All the same, the later emperor, Diocletian, saw fit to freeze the economy in 286 to ensure the legions were always better off than the peasants without any need for increasing spending. Any leader who is dependent on the military must promote popular officers and put powerful generals in government positions, and make sure they are well rewarded. Modern dictators have done this far better than the ‘military emperors’ did – and the successful ones usually espouse other political principles, such as nationalism. In some cases – such as Burma – a pure militocracy has operated where army officers were essentially the electorate for the junta.
12. Constantinian Theocracy
The reforms of Diocletian made the Roman Empire into a federation of despots. It had a rather complex system of succession amongst generals that led to civil war and then the unification of the empire by Constantine the Great. He created a new capital at Constantinople, but more importantly he firstly legalised Christianity and then made it the state religion. Since the time of Caesar the popularity of the traditional gods had been declining and various new sects competed for converts, Christianity had been suppressed on a number of occasions because Christians refused to recognise the emperor as a god. Constantine maintained that it was his faith in the Christian God that had won him the wars. How sincere he was about this is difficult to know, but he must have realised that the potential of the religion – with its support for the meek and promise of an eternal afterlife for good behaviour – was very great. With the aid of bishops he created an empire-wide Church organisation, whom he supported in preaching the pacifistic and deferential creed. The Byzantine emperors who followed him worked out elaborate court ritual associating the emperor with Christ – especially his status as a reborn saviour – that dazzled and intimidated all that witnessed it. Several other civilisations have had theocratic despots: the Chinese emperors claimed a monopoly on communicating with the ancestors, while the Arabian caliphs were the successors to Mohammed. This could be seen as an attempt to maintain a well behaved population, loyal to the despot, or a sincere attempt to keep the people content – as with the self interested need of democratic politicians to have a content electorate. Supporters of Constantine would see his theocratic despotism as a revolution a favour of the ‘meek’.
13. Feudalism
From the fourth century Germans were allowed to migrate onto Roman territory in order to support the declining imperial military, and when the Huns invaded Europe some German tribes were able to immigrate en mass. After the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410 peasants began bonding themselves to German warriors in order to protect themselves from bandits and tax collectors. These warriors, who became the barons, collected a portion of the harvest and controlled the marriages and movement of these unfree peasants. With the collapse of the West they acknowledged the rule of German monarchs. This was the gestation of what was later called the feudal system. The monarchs were able to attract warriors to their banners by granting them more lands, but this became problematic in the seventh century when cultivated land began to run out. When the west was subjected to the raids of Vikings, Saracens and Magyars, kingdoms were divided into regions controlled by counts and dukes for security’s sake. These princes were able to control the barons but were only nominally loyal to the monarch. The process of clearing wilderness and cultivating more land was begun in the tenth century, and came with the creation of boroughs that were controlled by those with the resources to get it done. Feudal monarchy was different from other kinds, in that the monarchs of western Europe had acquired the assistance of the Catholic Church. On their coronation kings were anointed with ‘holy oil’ by a bishop, and in the eyes of the populace this made them representative of God. Even when their realms were divided, the courts of the kings were superior to the princes. In the twelfth century it was the monarchs who reserved the right to promulgate laws – written attempts to define and refine age old customs. Feudal society was dependant on oaths of loyalty. The peasants swore loyalty to the barons, the barons to the king or prince. But these oaths were often difficult to enforce. A ruler often had to compromise with his mightiest barons to get the others to play along – baronial revolts, or plain ignorance towards the king, were rather common.
14. Cluniac Reform
Bishops in the late Roman Empire were elected by their congregations, but they had to be invested by those further up in the Church hierarchy, who had the last say in the matter. When the empire collapsed, and western Europe was subjected to raiding and chaos, the Church hierarchy could hardly be heard above the clash of arms. This led to bishops being invested by regional kings and princes. In the tenth century, at the Abbey of Cluny in southern France, there began a movement to make sure that bishops were properly educated and qualified, and to take their investment out of the hands of warlords and put it back in the power of the Church and the pope. Over the next few centuries Cluniac Reform was highly successful – the Dominican and Franciscan monastic brotherhoods were founded to educate and give an example of humility to the people. The investment of the pope was taken out of the hands of the Holy Roman Emperor and instead left up to a college of cardinals. The crusades gave popes significant powers, they could ostensibly raise armies for Christianity. The Church was so successful that by the fourteenth century it had become an enormously rich and powerful pan-European organisation. Popular attempts were made to reform it – to make it more spiritual and less worldly and corrupt. This involved religious movements amongst peasants, suppression by the authorities and sometimes armed revolt. The pluralism of having a spiritual hierarchy as well as a worldly one is possibly the reason for western Europe’s political development. In all other civilisations religion was either controlled by an emperor figure, or by a disorganised caste of priests regulated by an emperor figure. Christendom’s exclusive pluralism and the lack of any dominating central power led to a pluralism of thought, and an acceptance of disagreement – what we might call ‘politics’ – within the ruling class.
15. Anti-Clericalism
Cluniac reform sometimes faced the aggressive opposition of princes, kings and emperors. In early medieval times these lords were far more interested in the countryside than the declining towns and cities which were left to be administrated by bishops – they needed land to feed their warriors. But in the tenth century the economies of the Italian urban centres were reviving, and as time went on this spread somewhat across western Europe with a return of a money economy in some places. Not only were the secular rulers interested in this wealth, they were dependent on the Church for educated and literate advisors. The Holy Roman Emperor – ruler of Germany and Italy – was also dependent upon bishops to enforce the feudal oaths of imperial knights. This was his source of power over the many dukes of Germany. Imperial attempts to control the investment of bishops led to the ‘Investiture Contest’ – a long running civil war between pope and emperor, notably the zealous Gregory VII, and the apostate Henry IV. The ‘Contest’ was brought to an end by compromise at the concordat of Wurms in 1122: The Church would invest the bishops but the emperor or his agents had the right to be present at elections in order to enforce feudal oaths and therefore influence the outcome. Secular potentates across Christendom had to make similar concessions.
16. Medieval Corporatism
The rich trading cities of Italy started out under the control of bishops, but it was the merchants and the industrial craftsmen who generated the wealth, not the Church. As the bishops were partially elected, they began to rely on peoples’ assemblies to run the cities, and were eventually supplanted by them. These assemblies were controlled by the guilds, whose political competition often facilitated street violence between competing factions of traders. In the twelfth century imperial power in Italy was vastly increased with the conquest of Sicily. This led to the emperors’ dis-avowment of the Wurms concordat and a re-eruption of the argument between pope and emperor. The cities often sided with the pope, as they sought more independence, and a series of wars broke out between the ‘Guelphs’ (papists) and ‘Ghibbellines’ (imperialists). North Italy was divided between a number of city republics and small principalities, legally sovereign to the emperor but practically independent. In the thirteenth century France and England were also introducing parliaments. The kings of France were beginning to reunite their country. It made sense for the French monarch to ally himself with the lesser nobility and the upper bourgeoisie against mighty princes. As a result provincial estates (or parliaments) were set up in the conquered regions that had some say over taxes and regional law. Membership was based on various privileges granted by the king. Later, an Estates General was created to advise the king nationally. In England a series of baronial revolts resulted in the house of lords. The house of commons was created to counter the power of the lords. Members of parliament represented counties and boroughs, those who earned 40 shillings per annum or more from land were enfranchised to vote. A theory of sovereignty was developed that separated the crown from the man wearing it – a baron could be loyal to the crown whilst in conflict with the king. In both the English and French systems the monarchs remained supreme – parliamentary mechanisms were there to petition the ruler and enable him to explain his wishes to those lower down. Parliaments were not there to hold the monarch to account. However, all these developments pertained to a more inclusive and efficient system that attempted to be less brutish. Feudal monarchy was assisted by oligarchy and partial democracy.
17. Medieval Federalism
The Holy Roman Empire of Germany was always federal in nature – it never managed to unite itself as France did, and did not develop parliamentary institutions. It was divided between dukes, who were sometimes beholden to the emperor but sometimes in full revolt. In the late middle age it was to become an even loser union of princes. Voltaire wrote – ‘the Holy Roman Empire is neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire’. The emperors at this time were far more interested in wealthy Italy than Germany, where there was hardly a money economy. It was the Guelph-Ghibbelline wars in Italy that brought the fall: In 1212 Frederick II Hohenstaufen seized power in the empire in the name of the Guelphic party. But he found that the Guelph insistence on the freedom of bishops made it impossible to rule, and changed sides. Seeking dominance of Italy, he devolved power in Germany to the barons and the princes in return for a great army – but then was defeated in his attempt to take the Guelphic cities in Italy. The result was, an empire that controlled nothing. For twenty years there was no monarch, and a mosaic of hundreds of princes ruled independently. The pope persuaded them to elect monarchs, but they insisted that these monarchs would have very little power. In 1356 emperor Charles IV Luxembourg promulgated the Golden Bull that attempted to rationalise the situation: The seven most powerful princes would be risen to ‘Electors’ – they would elect emperors and jointly control imperial power over imperial knights, common law and custom payments. From the 1440s until the empire’s dissolution by Napoleon in 1806 the Habsburg archdukes of Austria were nearly always elected emperor. Imperial powers were reduced by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, and the ‘empire’ became even more like a collection of small, vaguely allied states, backed by Austria-Hungary. Poland developed a similar system before becoming unified in the fourteenth century – before the Germans became too disunited to bully them, the Poles found that maintaining unity led to the ruler being too draconian. Russia was similarly divided between princes, but they found no way to co-operate and there were a long series of wars for dominance.
18. Renaissance Patronage
The Renaissance of the fourteenth century was facilitated by the spread of Arabian knowledge of Greek and Roman philosophies and art into Christendom. Starting in Italy, classical ideas and techniques that had been lost for centuries were revived and extended by such figures as Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Copernicus. It coincided with, and was perhaps facilitated by, the return of a money economy to all of Europe. Rulers had the opportunity to enrich themselves, and spent copiously on proving their majesty and awe, using political patronage and acquiring a measure of despotic power. The republics of Italy were slowly usurped by rich dynasties – such as the Medici banking family in Florence. Through bribery and patronage they could control the assemblies, and have themselves voted new executive powers. As a result of the Hundred Years Wars, French kings had appointed royal princes to the regions to improve security, who then undermined the power of the estates. In England the Tudor dynasty radically reduced the powers of the aristocracy – blaming them squarely for the bloody wars between the Lancaster and York families. Whilst beforehand parliament had rather humbly sought to negotiate with monarchs, now it just sought to please the Tudors and became a rubber stamp body. The Spanish kings reformed their parliaments – the cortes – so that many of the members were nominated by the kings.
19. Protestantism
The movements and revolts against the Catholic Church in the fourteenth century were subdued by the authorities, but in the sixteenth century reformation they were renewed in a more forceful and successful manner. This success was due to the invention of the printing press – the Bible could be read in the vernacular languages and a far greater population were educated religiously. Martin Luther began the process in Germany in 1517, by starting a protest movement against the Church’s selling of papal indulgences – which maintained that the buyer was forgiven by God for their sins. The Diet of Worms held by the emperor Charles V had to concede that the German princes could legalise this Protestant movement if they wished. Protestantism was successful throughout northern Europe – the egalitarian sect of Lutheranism spreading throughout north Germany and Scandinavia, the more hierarchical Calvinists in Switzerland, France, the Netherlands and Scotland, and the Church of England was created by Henry VIII in order to acquire a divorce. All protestant sects held their services in the vernacular languages rather than Latin. Loyal Catholics had assumed that their Church was just as immortal as God, whilst the protestants accused the Catholic’s magical ceremonies of the mass and confession of being a pretence. Fanaticism, legal discrimination and terror abounded leading to revolt in the Netherlands against Spain (1566-1648), and bloody civil wars in France (1562-98), Germany (1618-48) and Britain (1642-51). Protestantism changed the culture of politics with its emphasis on the reasoning of individuals. Its ban on churches owning land led to a problem with funding alms to the poor, and protestant states had to erect poorhouses and commit to pauper relief funded by landlords. Catholicism responded with the counter-reformation in the seventeenth century – strengthening the hierarchy of the church to reduce corruption, and investing far more in education and poor relief.
20. Enlightenment Sophistism
The intellectual advances of the renaissance and the reformation led to an emphasis on reasoning over tradition in science, philosophy and art. In the period known as the Enlightenment, of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, gentlemen ‘sophists’ would meet in academies to discuss their enquires into subjects such as botany, ornithology and geology. Ladies would retire to salons to discuss the books written by the sophists, and new artistic works. Enlightenment sophistism soon worked its way into government: Something like national armies were created, replacing the system of mercenary companies. Some unreasonable feudal customs were annulled, cabinet governments became the norm, and postal services were created. Some monarchs embraced the concept of ‘enlightened despotism’, attempting to bypass restrictive feudal privileges and traditions.
21. Absolutism
Absolute Monarchy was the logical conclusion of enlightened despotism, promoting the reasonable government of the monarch over tradition-bound medieval parliamentary systems. The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, believed that the population must surrender its liberty to an absolute ruler otherwise their lives would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’. The ruler would be guided by a ‘social contract’ held with his people. Absolutism evolved in France – where protestantism was not successful – and then spread to most of the European continent. Cardinal Richelieu as first minister to Louis XIII and de facto ruler of France in the early seventeenth century, undermined the rights of aristocrats and boroughs in the fields of tax collecting and justice and sought to attract their collective allegiance to ministers in the royal council. This meant that the council could conduct various business without reference to the estates. He provoked sporadic rebellions of the aristocracy, known as ‘the Fronde’. Louis XIV took things a step further: He took personal charge of government – in which French monarchs up to the revolution followed his example. The rents and tolls of the aristocrats on the peasants were increased in return for their support for his complete ignorance of the estates – which now ceased to be called. He appointed ministers, or departmentes, to each region, undermining medieval positions and governing in his name. His emphasis on the greatness of himself was the same as the greatness of France as far as he was concerned: He stated: - ‘I am France’. The palace of Versailles was built to strike awe into the heart of all who heard of it, and likewise the ultra-formal etiquette of the royal court was designed to promote superiority. Government was firstly carried out by appointed aristocrats, but in the eighteenth century they were replaced by the professional middle classes – but still with the support of the aristocracy that formed the elite strata of society.
22. Parliamentarianism
England was one of the few places where parliament survived, and this was due to its victory in the civil war. The later philosopher, John Locke, argued in favour of a liberty where the people could dismiss their rulers – he was not that popular in his lifetime, even amongst the Whigs, but some people were arguing in this fashion in the 1640’s. It seems that most of the parliamentarians were fighting for English rights that they believed existed before the Norman Conquest, and likely for their own survival as oligarchs. In 1558 Elizabeth I was weak, and had inherited a weak country at war with powerful Spain. In order to bolster her power she invited commoners into government – thereby making an alliance with the house of commons. For the first time the house of commons had influence over government policy. Her Stuart successors in the early seventeenth century returned government to the partially despotic style of the early Tudors – England was back on track with the rest of Europe, going in the direction of Absolutism. Trouble was provoked by Charles I’s attempts to make the Church of England more Catholic in nature. When he sought to get the funds to subdue a Catholic Irish revolt, parliament instead issued the ‘Grand Remonstrance’ – illegally demanding the impeachment of some ministers. Charles’ attempts to arrest the parliamentary ringleaders led to the revolt of parliament. The parliamentarians were not fighting for a republic, but the king’s stubborn refusal to concede to their demands on his defeat in 1648 led to his execution for treason and the ‘commonwealth’ being declared. Parliament found it was unable to rule without a king figure, and had to rely on the army. Oliver Cromwell, the leader of the army, became king in all but name – and ruled far more despotically than Charles had. On his death the republic was unable to function, the Stuart monarchy was invited back, and Charles II sought to co-operate with parliament. The last instalment of the British constitutional set up came with the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688. James II – Charles II’s brother and successor – was a Catholic. He undermined parliament in an attempt to enact religious tolerance and provoked fears of a Catholic dynasty. An aristocratic conspiracy brought in William of Orange – leader of the Dutch Republic – to depose the king. He was made monarch in partnership with his wife, Mary II – daughter of James. They agreed a constitution that made the crown and parliament jointly sovereign, allowed freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. It guaranteed rule by cabinet government and general elections every few years. Later, in the eighteenth century, a prime minister was added to manage government for the king. It was this British agreement that created the now globally held distinctions between the head of state, executive and legislature – and separated the judiciary from government.
23. Toryism & Whigism
This split in the English parliament during the reign of Charles II took place due to a succession crisis over the king’s brother and heir James duke of York. James was a Catholic, and not only was there the issue of the governorship of the Church of England, but Catholics were generally detested. The Tories felt that the monarchy was sacrosanct, that James should be king no matter what, and a deal could be done over the Church of England. The Whigs demanded that parliament had the right to skip a generation in the hereditary succession, or even select a monarch itself. Charles II made sure that the Tories had their way, but both Whigs and Tories conspired at the Glorious Revolution that toppled James II. This party configuration continued throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries: Both parties sought to co-operate with the monarch, but the Tories felt the monarch was superior to parliament, while the Whigs felt that parliament was superior to the monarch. Landlords tended to support the Tories while merchants supported the Whigs. When the Conservative party was created in the 1840s it was exclusively joined by Tory MPs, which is why the two labels are interchangeable.
24. Mercantilism
This economic concept has often been described as the policy of ‘beggar thy neighbour’. It was in place in western Europe and its appendages from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, and centred on the apparent need for states to amass precious metals to keep their economies expanding. This meant exporting more than was imported, which led to the processing of commodities being banned in colonies, leaving them dependent on the mother country for manufactured goods whilst providing them with the raw materials. The natives of these overseas territories were deprived of rights – and often their lives – in order to acquire these materials, and in the case of Africa the natives were the materials. The Iberian imperial economies were dominated by the state, and the social structures of their colonies were excessively hierarchical – with only those being born in Europe having any political rights. Monarchs would invest heavily in ventures and then attempt to reap the rewards from adventurers and merchants in the form of high taxation. But in the English and Dutch empires a looser system was created – which would eventually lead to the modern corporation. Companies were chartered to run and profit from the colonies. The investment would come from bond-holders, and the position of company director would be a matter of negotiation between these bond-holders and the state. Whilst the bond-holders would get the majority of the profits for further investment, the state would benefit by charging for the charters. Both the English East India Company and the Dutch equivalent became powerful semi-independent polities in the Indian Ocean. The British colonies in North America evolved differently, mostly as the result of there being no substantial native population to exploit. To attract the indentured labour to farm the tobacco and cotton, institutions such as the Virginia Company had to offer extended rights to the settlers: They were not subject to the same restrictive religious laws as at home and they were given legislative assemblies with a far broader franchise than the British parliament.
25. American Patriotism / Radicalism
The word patriotism comes from Latin word patria conceived of in classical Roman times as loyalty to the political conception of the republic – especially in its liberty and in its search for the common good. It is different from nationalism as it is not attaching ethnicity to its definition of the state. Although for many parts of history the ruler was almost unconditionally loved by the people – advisors were blamed for the mistakes of kings – patriotism never asked for loyalty to a particular ruler. American patriots of the eighteenth century were definitely suspicious of their rulers, the British. They had acquired political rights over their governors in the form of elected assemblies. Not only had many of their ancestors left Britain due to religious persecution but the mother-country purposefully suppressed the American economy for its own ends. After a series of global wars between the UK and France that had involved North America as a theatre of battle, the UK attempted to make the colonists pay for their own defence. After long negotiations the taxes levied were actually rather tokenistic – but by this time the patriots had come up with the slogan of ‘no taxation without representation.’ The American War of Independence that followed, where the patriots were led by George Washington, created the USA. The new constitution – much influenced by John Locke – granted Americans liberty, equality and the right to pursue happiness (unless they were African slaves). The founding fathers were inspired by enlightenment thinkers such as Thomas Paine and Jeremy Benthem – who believed it was government’s job to give ‘greatest happiness to the greatest number’. American patriots remain proud of their liberty and suspicious of taxation – some of them suspicious of the actual state. The Americans made a large contribution to the later concept of liberalism. After the independence of America the ideals of American patriotism caught on in Britain. Here the activists were known as the Radicals and for a while formed a third block in parliament along with the Tories and the Whigs. They campaigned for ‘one man, one vote’, and they made allies of the new and dispossessed urban proletariat of the nascent industrial revolution. However, in the 1790s they were suppressed by a Tory government nervous of the revolution across the channel. Underground, the radicals formed the first trade unions.
26. Jacobinism
In the 1780s France suffered from a series of bad harvests, and the state was bankrupt. When the industrial workers of Paris – the Sans culottes – stormed the Bastille in 1789, it was a spontaneous event. King Louis XVI, nervous of disloyalty within the army, called the estates general for the first time in over 150 years. The chamber of the commoners successfully disbanded the other chambers and became the national assembly – in the next few years it disbanded feudalism and initiated land reform. During this time a number of political clubs were formed, the most important of them were the Jacobins. Like the other revolutionary clubs they felt that the nation should speak through its people, rather than its king – this was the gestation of democracy and nationalism. The Jacobins furthermore demanded a kind of elected dictatorship, and government intervention in the economy. When the king was executed in 1792, for trying to run away, a convention was elected with an almost all male franchise to decide upon a new constitution. The convention also elected a couple of committees to rule the country in the interim. The Jacobins dominated both of these committees and passed all power to their leader, Maximilian Robespierre. France was in a state of paranoia and crisis, with aristocrats and churchmen fleeing the country and the conservative powers of Europe declaring war. Robespierre unleashed the Great Terror of 1793-94, executing monarchists, speculators and conservatives. Despite this Terror the Jacobins were able to cap the price of grain and other staples, making survival significantly easier for the people. They were the first government to introduce a military draft, and were able to fight off the conservative powers as well as fight a counter-revolutionary revolt in the Vendee province. The Jacobins worshipped at the cult of the rational – they brought in metricisation, even attempting to metricise the calender, and they attempted to replace the Christian God with a rational supreme being. In the Thermidor reaction of 1794, the Sans culottes turned on the Jacobins – Robespierre and his allies were executed. A far more middle of the road government was installed, that ignored the constitution of 1793 and was far more liberal in its economics – although it did not allow a functioning political opposition, it did not slaughter its opponents either. Jacobinism was to have an influence on the British Radicals, and also on early American politics.
27. Bonapartism / Caudilism
Although the Parisian proletariat acquired an alliance with the French peasantry at the beginning of the revolution, the two groups soon fell out. The enlightenment thinking of the intelligensia who assumed command of proletarian politics was alien to the peasants, who were used to a very traditional lifestyle. They much preferred a popular dictator who would protect them from speculators and the manipulations of the rich. Napoleon Bonaparte tapped into this feeling when he seized power in 1797 – after the French had been defeated in the Revolutionary wars. In 1799 he was able to win a referendum that declared him emperor. Bonaparte had created a new kind of right wing that was not dependant on the traditions of yesteryear. He had gained enormous popularity by promulgating the Napoleonic Code, which made all citizens legally equal. Contradictorily to that, he was a military dictator, and as emperor he created a new aristocracy based on merit – ennobling successful shop-keepers, soldiers and academics and recruiting their support in a legislative ‘chamber of the nobility’. Although imperial expansionism was certainly a part of Bonapartism, and made him popular amongst the French, it did not have a great connection to his domestic policy. He certainly wanted to bring the revolution to others, but this was possibly an excuse for proving French superiority, and for massaging his own ego. Although the Caudillo’s of Latin America had no interest in military expansion, they were similar to Bonaparte in domestic policy: They had led revolutions against a Spanish colonial power that upheld a rigidly hierarchical society – only the Spanish born could hold political power, landlords had rights over peasants, black slavery was a major part of the economy and the natives were treated like animals. The new dictators – or Caudillo’s – legislated for the equality of all the people, and the slaves were emancipated. Despite being republican the Caudillo’s associated themselves with regal symbols – such as the sceptre, the mace and the ermine cloak. They were stubbornly anti-liberal and anti-socialist.
28. Federalism
When the USA declared its independence it saw itself as a union of small states. The Federalists, an early political party, turned this on its head with the idea of one nation with autonomous parts. They were possibly inspired by Medieval Federalism, but it was more likely a pragmatic response to the need for a stronger central authority. Despite the fact they only had one president, the Federalists made a lasting impression on the USA and the world. In other ways, the Federalists were positively Whigish – they were against the expansion of the electoral franchise, they proposed a ruling class of landlords and merchants and were accused of wanting to create an American monarchy. Their far more successful opponents were the Democratic-Republicans – moderate Jacobins who eventually became the Democrat party.
Martin Gooding
Comments