![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Alex and I were discussing something only tangentially related recently when I realised that the UK is the only country I can think of which has kind of evolved a democracy in a fairly undramatic and very gradual fashion. All the other countries about who's governmental history I know have either started as more or less democracies (e.g. America), had revolutions (e.g. France) or been pushed into it by other powers (e.g. India). I'm sure there must be others though - some of the Nordic states perhaps? Enlighten me, friends list.
no subject
I'm not sure if you can assume colonised countries 'started' that way, it's more a case that the colonisers brought in and imposed governmental styles similar to the ones they'd had previously.
no subject
no subject
no subject
This is something I've noticed before. I think it's all to do with the relative status of the middle classes and the fact that the bourgeoisie gained power far more easily in a trading economy like England's rather than a predominantly agricultural society like France. Also, the power of the Church in the countries that remained Catholic held the bourgeoisie down, whereas i think the Protestant church has historically had more scope for self-improvement.
I suspect that as well as the Scandinavian countries, a lot of the German states made relatively easy progress towards democratic or partially-democratic societies. Of course, the unification process there is a whole 'nother kettle of fish...
no subject
I *think* that the German states were mostly run by Princes/Electors (like George I, who was elector of Hanover) before unification under the Kaiser and were fairly autocratic in character. I don't think German democracy begins until the end of the First World War.
You're definitely right about social mobility though - I remember learning in history A-level that at the start of the 19th century there was a lot of fear that England would follow the French example but it didn't that that's generally put down to the opportunities for entrepreneurship, self improvement etc in England at the time.
no subject
The French and Russian revolutions were led by middle-class intellectuals. Lawyers, journalists, doctors, teachers. The anciens regimes in those countries restricted the freedom of the middle classes so much that educated people with some money/property felt compelled to rise up against the system. Without them the peasant uprisings would have been fairly rapidly squelched. Whereas, if you read Jane Austen, who is fairly contemporaneous with the French Revolution, you can see how much the professional classes were integrated with the gentry - there's little real distinction between the baronet, the clergyman and the doctor, and often the titled nobility were the poorer. The British bourgeoisie were just too comfortable to want to rock the boat.
no subject
The position of the British "constitution" has always been contested, if I recall. It tends to suit people to appeal to something which has "always been there" even if it hasn't, and there's been a lot more fighting and stuff involved than it's suited people to admit to, because they want to be able to appeal to an ancient constitution, guardian of liberty, &c.
I really ought to be able to write better about that, oughtn't I? :$
no subject
no subject
BTW
Re: BTW
Re: BTW
Re: BTW
Re: BTW
no subject
New Model Army?!?
Also, if it's all the same to you, America did experience a revolution...ahem. ;-) 'Course, in strange irony, where we had to experience the tyranny of your King George, now you get to experience the tyranny of ours. ;-)
---
If you mean representational government with an unchanged record through time - I think Iceland would probably beat all the others.
Also, if you look outside Europe
The Iroquois Confederacy which effectively established a Parliament of tribal interests was a critical regional, and world, player in the 1700s...
Re: Also, if you look outside Europe
Re: Also, if you look outside Europe
The Iroquois Confederacy formed around a council of representatives from each tribe that joined the Confederacy. The impetus for unity was a combination of some members having relatively close language groups, and a mutual threat from the Huron, iirc. Tribal governance beneath this supra-tribal body varied, and was mostly traditional...so hardly a 'one man, one vote.' At the position of tribal representative to the Council, though - there were voting rights, iirc.
Of course, the British and French were quick to get involved the muck things up even more. Steel blades and gunpowder tend to do that.
Ah...Wikipedia corroborates some of what I remembered (whew)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois
Indigenous American democracy, how about that. :-)
Iroquois Confederacy
Here too, if looking at alleged age.
---
But to the question of a democracy evolving without drama ... given the age and pace of the Iroquois Confederacy, that could qualify. It was not a revolutionary, or post-traumatic act.
and...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois_economics
Iceland
Of course, Wiki here argues it was more anarcho-capitalist than democratic.