History of Parliamentarism

The origin of the first parliament is in the Middle Ages. In the 1188 Alfonso IX, king of Leon convined the three states in the "Cortes de León".[1]

The origins of the modern concept of parliamentary government go back to the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1800) and the parliamentary system in Sweden during the Age of Liberty (1718–1772).

In the Kingdom of Great Britain, the monarch, in theory, chaired cabinet and chose ministers. In practice, King George I's inability to speak English led the responsibility for chairing cabinet to go to the leading minister, literally the prime or first minister, Robert Walpole. The gradual democratisation of parliament with the broadening of the voting franchise increased parliament's role in controlling government, and in deciding who the king could ask to form a government. By the nineteenth century, the Great Reform Act of 1832 led to parliamentary dominance, with its choice invariably deciding who was prime minister and the complexion of the government.

Other countries gradually adopted what came to be called the Westminster Model of government, with an executive answerable to parliament, but exercising powers nominally vested in the head of state, in the name of the head of state. Hence the use of phrases like Her Majesty's government or His Excellency's government. Such a system became particularly prevalent in older British dominions, many of whom had their constitutions enacted by the British parliament; examples include Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Irish Free State and the Union of South Africa. Some of these parliaments evolved or were reformed from their original British model: the Australian Senate, for instance, more closely reflects the US Senate than the British House of Lords; whereas there is no upper house in New Zealand.

Proto-parliamentary institutions

Since ancient times, when societies were tribal, there were councils or a headman whose decisions were assessed by village elders. This is often referred to as tribalism. Some scholars argue that in ancient Mesopotamia there was a primitive democratic government where the kings were assessed by council.[2] The same has been said about ancient India, where some form of assemblies existed, and therefore there was some form of democracy.[3] However, these claims are not accepted by most scholars, who see these forms of government as oligarchies.[4][5][6][7][8]

Ancient Athens was the cradle of democracy.[9] The Athenian assembly (ἐκκλησία ekklesia), was the most important institution, and every male aristocratic citizen above the age of thirty could take part in the discussions, but no women, no men under the age of thirty and of course no one of the thousand slaves are allowed to take part in the discussions. However, Athenian democracy was not representative, but rather direct, and therefore the ekklesia was different from the parliamentary system.

The Roman republic had legislative assemblies, who had the final say regarding the election of magistrates, the enactment of new statutes, the carrying out of capital punishment, the declaration of war and peace, and the creation (or dissolution) of alliances.[10] The Roman Senate controlled money, administration, and the details of foreign policy.[11]

Some Muslim scholars argue that the Islamic shura (a method of taking decisions in Islamic societies) is analogous to the parliament.[12] However, many other disagree, highlighting some fundamental differences between the shura system and the parliamentary system.[13][14][15]

In Anglo-Saxon England, the Witenagamot was an important political institution. The name derives from the Old English ƿitena ȝemōt, or witena gemōt, for "meeting of wise men". The first recorded act of a witenagemot was the law code issued by King Æthelberht of Kent ca. 600, the earliest document which survives in sustained Old English prose; however, the witan was certainly in existence long before this time.[16] The Witan, along with the folkmoots (local assemblies) is an important ancestor of the modern English parliament.[17]

France: swinging between presidential and parliamentary systems

France swung between different styles of presidential, semi-presidential and parliamentary systems of government; parliamentary systems under Louis XVIII, Charles X, the July Monarchy under Louis Philippe, King of the French and the Third Republic and Fourth Republic, though the extent of full parliamentary control differed in each, from one extreme under Charles X (a strong head of state) to full parliamentary control (under the Third Republic). Napoleon III offered attempts at some degree of parliamentary control of the executive, though few regarded his regime as genuinely parliamentary and democratic. A presidential system existed under the short-lived Second Republic. The modern Fifth Republic system combines aspects of presidentialism and parliamentarianism.

Parliamentarism in France differed from parliamentarism in the United Kingdom in several ways. First, the French National Assembly had more power over the cabinet than the British Parliament had over its cabinet. Second, France had shorter lived premierships. In the seventy years of the Third Republic, France had over fifty premierships.

In 1980 Maurice Duverger claimed that the Fifth Republic was a government in which the president was supreme, a virtual king. More recent analyses of France's system have downgraded the importance of the French president. During cohabitation, when the National Assembly of France and presidency are controlled by opposite parties, the French president is rather weak. Thus, some scholars see the French system as not one that is half presidential and half parliamentary, but as one that alternates between presidentialism and parliamentarism.

The spread of parliamentarism in Europe

Democracy and parliamentarism became increasingly prevalent in Europe in the years after World War I, partially imposed by the democratic victors, Great Britain and France, on the defeated countries and their successors, notably Germany's Weimar Republic and the new Austrian Republic. Nineteenth century urbanisation, industrial revolution and, modernism had already fueled the political Left's struggle for democracy and parliamentarism for a long time. In the radicalised times at the end of World War I, democratic reforms were often seen as a means to counter popular revolutionary currents. Thus established democratic regimes suffered however from limited popular support, in particular from the political Right.

Another obstacle was the political parties' unpreparedness for long-term commitments to coalition cabinets in the multi-party democracies on the European continent. The resulting "Minority-Parliamentarism" led to frequent defeats in votes of confidence and almost perpetual political crisis which further diminished the standing of democracy and parliamentarism in the eyes of the electorate.

Many early twentieth century regimes failed through political instability and/or the interventions of heads of state, notably King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy's failure to back his government when facing the threat posed by Benito Mussolini in 1922, or the support given by King Alfonso XIII of Spain to a prime minister using dictatorial powers in the 1920s. Finland is sometimes given as a counter-example, where a presidential democracy was established after a failed revolution and more than three months of bitter Civil War in Finland (1918). In 1932 the Lapua Movement attempted a coup d'état, aiming at the exclusion of Social Democrats from political power, but the Conservative President Svinhufvud maintained his democratic government. Parliamentarism was (re-)introduced by Svinhufvud's successor Kyösti Kallio in 1937.

See also

References

  1. ↑ http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2013/06/19/castillayleon/1371632533.html
  2. ↑ Jacobsen, T. (July 1943). "Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia". Journal of Near Eastern Studies 2 (3): 159–172.
  3. ↑ Robinson, E. W. (1997). The First Democracies: Early Popular Government Outside Athens. Franz Steiner Verlag. ISBN 3-515-06951-8.
  4. ↑ Bailkey, N. (July 1967). "Early Mesopotamian Constitutional Development". American History Review 72 (4): 1211–1236. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1847791.
  5. ↑ Larsen, J.A.O. (Jan. 1973). "Demokratia". Classical Philology 68 (1): 45–46.
  6. ↑ de Sainte, C.G.E.M. (2006). The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-1442-3. http://books.google.com/books?id=LkYIAAAAIAAJ.
  7. ↑ Bongard-Levin, G.M. (1986). A complex study of Ancient India. South Asia Books. ISBN 81-202-0141-8.
  8. ↑ Sharma, J.P. (1968). Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. http://books.google.com/books?id=sQKNAAAAMAAJ.
  9. ↑ John Dunn (2005), Democracy:a History, p.24
  10. ↑ Abbott, Frank Frost (1901). A History and Description of Roman Political Institutions. Elibron Classics. ISBN 0-543-92749-0.
  11. ↑ Byrd, Robert (1995). The Senate of the Roman Republic. US Government Printing Office Senate Document 103–23.
  12. ↑ "The Shura principle in Islam" by Sadek Jawad Sulaiman
  13. ↑ The System of Islam, (Nidham ul Islam) by Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, Al-Khilafa Publications, 1423 AH - 2002 CE, p. 61
  14. ↑ The System of Islam, by Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, p. 39
  15. ↑ Shura and Democracy,by M. A. Muqtedar Khan
  16. ↑ Liebermann, Felix, The National Assembly in the Anglo-Saxon Period (Halle, 1913; repr. New York, 1961).
  17. ↑ Birth of the English Parliament

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Wednesday, November 04, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.