The Slow March to Democracy - 13th to 18th Century England

Enough of these philosophers! If philosophers could shape the world, then what need would there be for democracies? From wrecking prisons in France to filling prisons in India, it is the masses who said no to tyranny and yes to the rule of justice and humanity. 

Indeed, we have discussed thinkers like Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau over the last few articles, who used the imaginary ploy of State of Nature to reveal abstract concepts of social contract, natural rights and general will. However, the modern democracy that we see, with millions of people, a constitution, a cabinet, a parliament, courts & elections, never came out of some mythical "State of Nature". All of these wonderful innovations, while inspired by those concepts, and being as revolutionary as the steam engine or electricity, were brought into force by men and women in the steady course of history. 

Secondly, in our journey from early Greece to medieval France, we have focused only on Europe, as if democratic thinkers and institutions were only the gifts of the West and this is altogether untrue. The primary instinct of arriving at a decision through public discussion and approval, can be found across the world, including India, and that is what makes it an enduring idea. But the modern representative democracies that we see, with a particular set of institutions is by and large a gift of the West, or more precisely the English.

Off to 13th Century England

England, was not altogether English at the turn of the first millennium. The Norman invasion had brought in a mix of Normans(Viking descendants), French and Flemish people into positions of power. These Normans turned the English polity into a more feudal set up, where there were barons who held land and army, and provided the King with revenues to fund his administration and wars. 

At the turn of the 13th century, King John was courting resentment. His embarrassing losses in France, his expensive Crusades, a heavy ransom for his kidnapped brother and the gall to demand more money, brought the Barons out on the streets. Civil war ensued and the rebels cornered the King to extract a deal, a deal known as the Magna Carta.

King John surrounded by rebel Barons

The Magna Carta is among the most notable early attempts at holding the King accountable and bringing the sovereign under the rule of law. Written in Latin, the Magna Carta (or Great Charter) was effectively the first written constitution in European history. Of its 63 clauses, many concerned the various property rights of barons and other powerful citizens, suggesting the limited intentions of the framers. The benefits of the charter were for centuries reserved for only the elite classes, while the majority of English citizens still lacked a voice in government

Signed in Runnymede, some of these 63 clauses were truly remarkable and had far-reaching implications, even inspiring the American constitution. 

"No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised(dispossesed), outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

"To no one will We sell, to no one will We deny or delay, right or justice."

While kings across most parts of the world we know, had tyrannical authority and could persecute anybody and acquire anyone's property at their will, the Magna Carta in England meant that even the King wasn't above the rule of law and justice and that people(i.e., Barons until this point) had significant rights against the king.

Runnymede

The First Parliament & General Elections

The Magna Carta, signed in 1215, also established the rights of of barons(wealthy landowners) to serve as consultants to the king on governmental matters in his Great Council or Magnum Concillium. It was pronounced as the "Parliament" for the first time in Henry III's summon in 1236 and thereafter, it was a story of continuous struggle and progress. By 1254, counties in England were instructed to send elected representatives of their districts (knowns as “knights of the shire”) to consult with the king on issues related to taxation. In 1265, boroughs or towns were asked to send representatives as well, requiring that all members be elected.  In 1295, even nobles and bishops were invited along with the two mandated representatives from each of the counties and towns in England & Wales, which became the model for the composition of all future Parliaments. 

An assembly of consultants for the King was nothing new in world's political history. The Roman Senate was a group of aristocrats who consulted the King. Nor were elections something new, as we saw with the Greeks who elected a Boule. A representative assembly wasn't new either, as was the case with a Gana Sangha in Vrijji, which was representative of all the major families/clans inside the republic. But elections at the scale that happened in England, with geographical constituencies, with legislative powers that held the King accountable, were novel and the first of their kind!

A representation of the House of Commons

But why did Monarchs take the initiative to organize these parliaments? They were very far from being democrats, nor was there a written constitution that they must obey the Magna Carta for a whole century. The real reason for summoning these parliaments was usually to increase taxation to finance their wars and fancies. However, the members were far more anxious to establish a second function: to discuss grievances. A kind of quid pro quo was looked for: money for the Scottish campaign of 1296 would be forthcoming if certain grievances were addressed. This consciousness was growing, even if all was still in an embryonic state. 

During the 14th century, the Parliament steadily grew in the power and stature, passing a statute in 1362 that it must approve all taxation policies before they are implemented, even deposing the King Richard II to replace him with Henry IV. It was during this century that it gained the now familiar structure of a bicameral legislature, with an upper and lower house. In 1414, Henry IV’s son, Henry V, assumed the throne and became the first monarch to acknowledge that the approval and consultation of both houses of Parliament was required to make new laws.

This slow march wasn't without glitches of course. Until a legislation in 1430, the franchise (electorate) for elections of knights of the shire was not restricted to forty shilling freeholders(or free citizens with property worth 40 shillings). In 1576 during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, Peter Wentworth, M.P., made an impassioned speech arguing for the freedom of speech and was sentenced to imprisonment in the Tower of London. 

Political Parties & the Bloodless Revolution

A representation of Oliver Cromwell leading
the Parliamentarian Army

One can talk about Politics for only so long without saying "Religion" or "Blood", especially medieval Politics. No wonder too that they were involved in the rise of political parties in England. For much of the 17th century, the United Kingdom experienced a great deal of change and political turmoil. A lot of this turmoil was sparked by Kings' insistence on the Divine Right (remember Hobbes & Locke?) and some of it was due to their open allegiance to Catholic Christianity. 

Without going into the details, Charles I had the gall to suspend the Parliament between 1629 and 1640, which aroused strong resentment among a section of the parliament. This period was followed by some conciliatory efforts which failed and ultimately led to the English Civil War between the Royalists and Parliamentarians. Charles I was beheaded in 1648, and only after another decade of bloodlust could his son, Charles II claim throne in 1660. The period that followed is known as the "Restoration".

But all was not well in the Royal household. While King Charles II was Anglican, his brother James II found himself closer to Catholicism. Now, Catholics were seen very suspiciously in England, were brutally massacred during the Civil War and a new Test Act in 1673 required all public officials to swear allegiance to the Church of England. This very flammable suspicion was set alight by a disgruntled public official, Titus Oates, who spread a rumor that Catholics were planning to assassinate Charles II to enable James II to takeover as King. What followed was the unravelling of factions in the parliament and across the country. In a series of Parliament sessions held between 1679 and 1681, an Exclusion Act was debated to exclude James II from succession. The group or "party" that vigorously fought for James II's exclusion became known as the Whigs, and they showed their flair for organization and propaganda through their overwhelming victories in the elections for the three 'Exclusion Parliaments' of 1679-81. In reaction, a 'Tory' ideology had developed by 1681 which equally loudly supported the monarchy and James II. These events are often considered the founding ground of "Political Parties" as we know them today.

Charles never called another Parliament and in the following years he carried out a campaign against the leading Whigs. Two were executed, many went into exile, and even more were removed from town and local government. The success of this 'Tory Party' was to ensure for James II a smooth succession when Charles II died in February 1685.

Another Tory success, or failure? 

However, the Whig "Party" was to have the final word, and in a "Bloodless Revolution", also known as the "Glorious Revolution". James II's attempt to end the Test Act cemented the suspicions of many officials and soon the Dutch King William (who was also a Protestant), landed at the English coast. As the King's officials and even his daughter deserted him, he gave up and escaped the country, ceding the throne to William in 1688. 

Whigs and Tories remained essential identifiers in the English parliament, into the 18th century and solidified into formal party formations.

English Exceptionalism

But why did this democratic urge express itself itself so early only in England? Why did God not Save the King only in the United Kingdom? While the the French, the Spanish, the Russians and even Indians had strong absolutist monarchs, why did only English kings submit to parliamentary and legal accountability so early, to pave the way for popular legislatures, cabinets and party politics? Francis Fukuyama argues that the story of political development is the story of interaction between centralizing states and social groups resisting them and he classifies power structures in Europe along three broad lines viz. Absolutist , Weak Absolutist and Accountable Governments. 

Absolutist Government arose where there were strong central governments and weak resisting groups and Medieval Russia was a prime example of Absolutist rule. The Ruriks who became powerful after the decline of the Mongols centralized the state and created a strong bureaucracy, but what they 

succeeded at was weakening possible resistance. This they achieved by filling the middle service/bureaucracy with members of aristocratic family and ranking them on their position in the royal service, creating substantial disunity. The Romanovs who succeeded continued this tradition. Unlike the English, they had poorer traditions of a legal system, which meant that final power rested with the almighty King ; making it an all-powerful, Absolutist state, with no recourse to hold the King accountable. 

An assembly of nobility during Catherine the Great's rule

Weak Absolutism arose wherever resisting groups managed to organize, but not adequately, leading to the presence of an absolutist government, albeit a weakened one. France, for example, throughout this period witnessed increasing centralization of administration and taxation, owing to the many wars it fought, for which it needed resources. And so did England, but in the latter, this was used by a more or less united group of Barons to extract accountability and control on the King's expenditure and policy. In France, this need for money led to a system of Venality and the Paulette. This meant that the aristocrats began to cut independent deals with the royalty to seek tax benefits, ministries and positions, sacrificing the larger good they could have done for themselves and the larger masses. They sided with the King in his absolutism, they were coopted by the king, and ultimately faced the ire of the masses, in the bloody French Revolution.

What England(alongside the Dutch, albeit a little later) managed to achieve was Accountable Government. If it was a lack of solidarity, among the nobles in Russia and between the nobles and the masses in France, it was perhaps solidarity itself that led England in the third direction, or so is Fukuyama's theory. If the Russians had the Zemskiy Sobor, the French had provincial courts, both of which were assemblies of aristocrats and nobles. While these aristocrats failed to fight for their rights and the rights of their people, bending over backwards and even joining them in their corruption, the English fought, upended and murdered Kings for their collective rights and for the preservation of common law.  Why the English could do so, is open to debate, but Fukuyama argues that early political solidarity among the English through grassroot democratic institutions, the presence of an English Common Law, which was developed over time, was impartial and trusted by the people and finally Religious strife as we saw towards the 16th & 17th century created the ground or catalyzed this possibility. 

Where to Next?

What the English had achieved was for everyone to see, including the American colonies, the French and the rest of Europe. This balance between Royalty and a Parliament with people's representation at scale, was going to inspire many new innovations, including the American Constitution. Eventually British colonies, including India, borrowed and adapted many of these institutions successfully into their political systems to build democracies at scale. Thus is the short version of a very long story, of the modern world's first steps towards a representative democracy. 

References:

1. Francis Fukuyama : The Origins of Political Order(2011) - Profile Books

2. https://www.history.com

3. https://www.britannica.com

4. https://www.english-heritage.org.uk

5. https://www.parliament.uk