*****The Evolution of Government: Anarchy-Monarchy-Parliament*****LIBERTY -What it means? How to maximise it & preserve it***** # 2 post on Liberty and this topic
The Evolution of Government: Anarchy-Monarchy-Parliament
The word anarchy is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “absence of government; disorder;
confusion”. It is derived from the Greek an arkhos meaning without leader. Left entirely to their
own devices people can, and will, injure, steal from and cheat one another. Then follows revenge,
and counter-revenge. And so it continues. Civilization cannot develop without reasonable safety of
person and property, without the stability of some agreed and enforced rules of conduct. Life is at
best difficult, at worst intolerable.
The condition of anarchy still persists in many parts of the world. In the younger, less developed
nations we learn frequently of a breakdown in law and order, either as a semi-permanent condition
resulting from the impotence or non-existence or corruption of a central government, or in times of
revolution or tribal conflict.
The first, fundamental step in political development is the movement from total lawlessness, or
anarchy, to some kind of centralized law and order. The politically developed nations have long
accepted the concept of a central authority or government, and the Rule of Law which sets
restraints upon the scope of people’s actions.
When power, that is the physical ability to influence the behaviour of others, is centralized, the
Rule of Law is thus imposed. Instead of individuals arguing and settling their differences in a
continuing series of battles based on personal power, the authority to establish decisions on social
conduct together with the power necessary to enforce them is vested in a centralized institution – a
Monarch, Dictator, or Parliament.
As Centralized Power takes over from Anarchy it generally takes the form of an autocratic,
dictatorial rule by one strong man and his supporters. In Britain’s case the earliest form of central
political rule was an Absolute Monarchy. Clearly the first step for reformers must be to try and
impose some degree of discipline over the Monarch in order to render his rule less “absolute”.
Three major objectives of discipline over the Monarch were to be developed by reformers and
pursued consistently over several centuries: the obligation to rule responsibly, to rule in
consultation with his peers, and to conduct himself within the bounds of established law and
custom. These three guiding principles would come to form the very essence of the Anglo tradition
of Constitutional Rule.
A thousand years ago, in late Anglo-Saxon times, England was united into one Kingdom ruled by a
King and his Council, and the institution of Kingship was already established as having limited
powers.
The King was bound by his Coronation Oath to defend the Church, to punish crime and violence,
and to rule with clemency and mercy. He was also bound by customary rules of law, and to some
extent his power was restricted by his Council. He was viewed as a religious and moral leader, a
protector of the people in war and in peace.
Following earlier tradition, the English King was not generally regarded as a source of law,
although occasionally he might declare a law with the consent of his Council or issue written laws
called “Dooms”.
The great body of Anglo-Saxon law was the unwritten folk law, handed down from one generation
to the next, giving the common people rights and duties of what we would today call citizenship,
and setting out procedures for determining fault or guilt and methods of punishing wrongdoers.
While change was not impossible, arbitrary alteration of the rules was considered improper, and
indeed, bordered on impiety.
This tradition did not of course preclude the frequent occurrence of abuse by Monarchs keen to
enhance their own powers, or simply reluctant to recognize any form of constraint over their
conduct. In such cases it would be the powerful Barons and Clergy who would bring the King to
order in the name of Constitutional custom, reinforced by a growing body of written Constitutional
documents agreed by the Kings either freely or under pressure.
The periodic convening of his influential men by the King continued during the 14th, 15th and 16th
Centuries, developing gradually into an early form of Parliament which would later challenge and
claim precedence over the power of the King.
By 1600 England had a recognizable Parliament; but its decisions, indeed its very existence, were
subject to the King’s will or whim. The focus of political and constitutional reform was now
centered on the battle for supremacy between King and Parliament, in which the 1600s would
prove to be a critical century. Beginning with Absolute Monarchy and ending with Parliamentary
Supremacy, the century was punctuated almost midway, in 1649, by Parliament’s highly symbolic
trial, sentencing and execution of King Charles I.
The execution of Charles I in 1649 was a dramatically symbolic turning point. It represented a final
denial of the Divine Right of autocratic Monarchs and the assertion of Parliamentary supremacy.
But at the same time, the act of inherent violence both to the King and to all that he represented
was a stark representation of that very constitutional disarray which the English had always tried to
avoid.
For the next half-century England suffered the uncertainties, instability and indignity of a Military
Republic, a near-dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell, and later under his ineffectual son Richard
when Cromwell died in 1658. In 1660 George Monck, who had been Cromwell’s Commander in
Chief in Scotland, restored Parliament and recalled from exile King Charles’ son who now became
Charles II. But the battle for the supremacy of parliament was still not won.
In 1688 Parliament invited King James’ daughter Mary and her Dutch husband William of Orange
to land in England and accept a specially drawn up Declaration of Rights which stipulated in
precise detail the new relationship between King and Parliament and the limitations on Royal
power.
The King could no longer suspend or dispense with laws by regal authority; the King could no
longer levy taxes or maintain an army without the consent of Parliament; and the regular assembly
of Parliament, without royal interference, was guaranteed.
William and Mary accepted Parliament’s conditions, as the text of the 1689 Bill of Rights relates.
“Their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the Kingdoms of England, France
and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the
said Lords and Commons, contained in the said declaration. And thereupon Their Majesties were
pleased, that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons being the two Houses of
Parliament should continue to sit, and with Their Majesties’ Royal concurrence make effectual
provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this Kingdom, so that the same for
the future might not be in danger again of being subverted.”
As William III and Mary became joint Sovereigns, the old partnership between Crown and
Parliament was resumed. But whereas Parliament had previously given assent to the wishes of the
Monarch, now it was the Monarch who formalized the decisions of Parliament with the Royal
Assent. The battle for consultation had been won by the fact of Parliamentary supremacy. But it
was consultation with a minority of rich and powerful who would rule the country in their own best
interests. Subsequent development would focus on widening representation.
--------TAKEN FROM - Michael Satorius Book
______ TO BE CONTINUED.....
The Evolution of Government: Anarchy-Monarchy-Parliament
The word anarchy is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “absence of government; disorder;
confusion”. It is derived from the Greek an arkhos meaning without leader. Left entirely to their
own devices people can, and will, injure, steal from and cheat one another. Then follows revenge,
and counter-revenge. And so it continues. Civilization cannot develop without reasonable safety of
person and property, without the stability of some agreed and enforced rules of conduct. Life is at
best difficult, at worst intolerable.
The condition of anarchy still persists in many parts of the world. In the younger, less developed
nations we learn frequently of a breakdown in law and order, either as a semi-permanent condition
resulting from the impotence or non-existence or corruption of a central government, or in times of
revolution or tribal conflict.
The first, fundamental step in political development is the movement from total lawlessness, or
anarchy, to some kind of centralized law and order. The politically developed nations have long
accepted the concept of a central authority or government, and the Rule of Law which sets
restraints upon the scope of people’s actions.
When power, that is the physical ability to influence the behaviour of others, is centralized, the
Rule of Law is thus imposed. Instead of individuals arguing and settling their differences in a
continuing series of battles based on personal power, the authority to establish decisions on social
conduct together with the power necessary to enforce them is vested in a centralized institution – a
Monarch, Dictator, or Parliament.
As Centralized Power takes over from Anarchy it generally takes the form of an autocratic,
dictatorial rule by one strong man and his supporters. In Britain’s case the earliest form of central
political rule was an Absolute Monarchy. Clearly the first step for reformers must be to try and
impose some degree of discipline over the Monarch in order to render his rule less “absolute”.
Three major objectives of discipline over the Monarch were to be developed by reformers and
pursued consistently over several centuries: the obligation to rule responsibly, to rule in
consultation with his peers, and to conduct himself within the bounds of established law and
custom. These three guiding principles would come to form the very essence of the Anglo tradition
of Constitutional Rule.
A thousand years ago, in late Anglo-Saxon times, England was united into one Kingdom ruled by a
King and his Council, and the institution of Kingship was already established as having limited
powers.
The King was bound by his Coronation Oath to defend the Church, to punish crime and violence,
and to rule with clemency and mercy. He was also bound by customary rules of law, and to some
extent his power was restricted by his Council. He was viewed as a religious and moral leader, a
protector of the people in war and in peace.
Following earlier tradition, the English King was not generally regarded as a source of law,
although occasionally he might declare a law with the consent of his Council or issue written laws
called “Dooms”.
The great body of Anglo-Saxon law was the unwritten folk law, handed down from one generation
to the next, giving the common people rights and duties of what we would today call citizenship,
and setting out procedures for determining fault or guilt and methods of punishing wrongdoers.
While change was not impossible, arbitrary alteration of the rules was considered improper, and
indeed, bordered on impiety.
This tradition did not of course preclude the frequent occurrence of abuse by Monarchs keen to
enhance their own powers, or simply reluctant to recognize any form of constraint over their
conduct. In such cases it would be the powerful Barons and Clergy who would bring the King to
order in the name of Constitutional custom, reinforced by a growing body of written Constitutional
documents agreed by the Kings either freely or under pressure.
The periodic convening of his influential men by the King continued during the 14th, 15th and 16th
Centuries, developing gradually into an early form of Parliament which would later challenge and
claim precedence over the power of the King.
By 1600 England had a recognizable Parliament; but its decisions, indeed its very existence, were
subject to the King’s will or whim. The focus of political and constitutional reform was now
centered on the battle for supremacy between King and Parliament, in which the 1600s would
prove to be a critical century. Beginning with Absolute Monarchy and ending with Parliamentary
Supremacy, the century was punctuated almost midway, in 1649, by Parliament’s highly symbolic
trial, sentencing and execution of King Charles I.
The execution of Charles I in 1649 was a dramatically symbolic turning point. It represented a final
denial of the Divine Right of autocratic Monarchs and the assertion of Parliamentary supremacy.
But at the same time, the act of inherent violence both to the King and to all that he represented
was a stark representation of that very constitutional disarray which the English had always tried to
avoid.
For the next half-century England suffered the uncertainties, instability and indignity of a Military
Republic, a near-dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell, and later under his ineffectual son Richard
when Cromwell died in 1658. In 1660 George Monck, who had been Cromwell’s Commander in
Chief in Scotland, restored Parliament and recalled from exile King Charles’ son who now became
Charles II. But the battle for the supremacy of parliament was still not won.
In 1688 Parliament invited King James’ daughter Mary and her Dutch husband William of Orange
to land in England and accept a specially drawn up Declaration of Rights which stipulated in
precise detail the new relationship between King and Parliament and the limitations on Royal
power.
The King could no longer suspend or dispense with laws by regal authority; the King could no
longer levy taxes or maintain an army without the consent of Parliament; and the regular assembly
of Parliament, without royal interference, was guaranteed.
William and Mary accepted Parliament’s conditions, as the text of the 1689 Bill of Rights relates.
“Their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the Kingdoms of England, France
and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the
said Lords and Commons, contained in the said declaration. And thereupon Their Majesties were
pleased, that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons being the two Houses of
Parliament should continue to sit, and with Their Majesties’ Royal concurrence make effectual
provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this Kingdom, so that the same for
the future might not be in danger again of being subverted.”
As William III and Mary became joint Sovereigns, the old partnership between Crown and
Parliament was resumed. But whereas Parliament had previously given assent to the wishes of the
Monarch, now it was the Monarch who formalized the decisions of Parliament with the Royal
Assent. The battle for consultation had been won by the fact of Parliamentary supremacy. But it
was consultation with a minority of rich and powerful who would rule the country in their own best
interests. Subsequent development would focus on widening representation.
--------TAKEN FROM - Michael Satorius Book
______ TO BE CONTINUED.....
Comments