Could absolute monarchy have survived?

[unmerged(41083)]

Well their is an unwrittern consitution and also plenty of parlimentary conventions.

And what does this unwritten constitution say? It doesn't, because it's unwritten. It is just a vague concept with no real authority.

The closest thing we have to a constitution in Britain is the Human Rights Act, because politically no party would dare to revoke part of it (except, er... that's exactly what this government has done. No restriction on imprisonment without trial for us!).

 

[unmerged(10426)]

Britain has a constitution; it's just a very weak and intensely flexible one.

The idea that Britain doesn't have any kind of written constitution is rot, incidentally; it has plenty of elements of it constitution in written form, (The Act of Settlement, the Treaty of Rome, the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, etc, etc blah blah blah) they simply aren't codified into one document.

Oh, and if you're denying that Britain has any constitution whatsoever, then you're essentially denying that Britain has a formal system of government - which is patently absurd.


On the original question: IMHO, Absolute monarchy, at least in Europe, would have been unsustainable past about 1930-1940 or so. The demands of a modern, liberal, capitalist society would have simply been too great on it. There's no chance that it could have surived into the modern age, certainly. Even now in the rest of the world it is almost extinct. (Not even places like Thailand have any real political role for the monarch nowadays)

 

[Gordy]

One the original question: IMHO, Absolute monarchy, at least in Europe, would have been unsustainable past about 1930-1940 or so. The demands of a modern, liberal, capitalist society would have simply been too great on it. There's no chance that it could have surived into the modern age, certainly.

Not if economic progress is assumed to be inevitable no. Take a really backward part of Europe like Albania or Belarus and the monarchy could have continued (if Belarus had one or in Albania's case if the Communists hadn't kicked Zogu out).

 

[ComradeOm]

Not if economic progress is assumed to be inevitable no. Take a really backward part of Europe like Albania or Belarus and the monarchy could have continued (if Belarus had one or in Albania's case if the Communists hadn't kicked Zogu out).

In those days such a backward nation would not have survived full stop. And really its impossible to imagine a small nation in the centre of Europe remaining stuck two to three centuries behind everyone else.

 

[Skarion]

I think very few monarchies in Europe have always been constitutional monarchies. For that to happen you'd need a state that got independence only in the 19th century and then adopted a monarch. Romania would have been a candidate but the Communists kicked the King out.

My best guess is that it might be true of Norway.

As most monarchies had a parliament (Riksdag in Sweden) keeping it in check, I consider them consitutional monarchies (Monarchy with a Riksdag keeping it in check have existed as long as the Swedish monarchy, even though it was finally under GIIA that it was finnalised in law on how the Riksdag would be).

 

[Gordy]

In those days such a backward nation would not have survived full stop. And really its impossible to imagine a small nation in the centre of Europe remaining stuck two to three centuries behind everyone else.

But it is not inevitable that all of Europe develops. Africa has failed to do so.

It is very likely even almost certain but not actually inevitable.

 

[unmerged(13991)]

Untill Louis XIV , french monarchy was far to be absolute, but somewhat a pre democracy (or pre republic), with Kings more like the old german 'RIC' than real kings.

Louis XIV was the absolute monarc ' The state is I (me?)', the trend disppear after him, and the court became against important.

Let say France was under an absolute monarchy during less than 2 centuries (before the Sun King, the Paris parliement, and Toulouse parliement for some question, had the hight hand on the laws and the money).

But exceptional situations give exceptional people to a country : Louis XIV and Napoleon. Napy was the last, and I do not feel he was absolute monarch

 

[ComradeOm]

But it is not inevitable that all of Europe develops. Africa has failed to do so.

It is very likely even almost certain but not actually inevitable.

The problem is that if "Nation X" remains at an 18th century level in terms of economics and technology, then its chances of surviving 1930s Europe are almost nil. In which case the king/queen is replaced by external forces.

That is assuming that its possible for this gap to unfold in the first place. Personally I'd consider it impossible that two neighbours could exhibit such a gulf in terms of advancement. Good ideas have a tendency to spread after all.

 

[kingmbutu]

No, Absolute monarchy was a stepping stone towards capitalism. Absolute monarchy could only be maintained as long as a rich, landowning elite could maintain something that resembled feudalism, which the King could manipulate through personal ties well enough to exercise unquestioned authority over the millions of tiny, provincial magnates and assemblies which were always trying to stand in the way of his exercise of power.

When aristocracy gave way to capitalism and more widespread middle class interests, the upper middle class elements no longer wanted or needed a monarch who was only interested in protecting the rights of the Noble Elite.

So, absolutism could survive, but only as long the economy of the country stayed backwards. (Russia)

This fails on two key point: first the assumption that absolute monarchy was a stepping stone to capitalism. Capitalism could, and did develop in any context. In fact it could be reasonable argued that the earliest capitalist societies (in a modern sense) were the Italian city states during the Renaissance. Absolutism did not precede that development. This is besides the obvious fact that absolute monarchy refers to a political system while capitalism refers to an economic system. Capitalism is not synonymous with democracy, although people would have us to believe that is the case.

The second assumption is that absolutism is necessarily tied to a landed aristocracy. This is also untrue. In fact the aristocracy tended to be the most ardent opponents of absolutism, while the middle classes did (and do) tended to support a strong executive (i.e. monarch) who could provide the security and stability necessary for economic growth. In fact much of the economic growth of the late nineteenth century took place in countries that were nor particularly democratic (2nd Empire France, Wilhelmine Germany).

When I stated before that current leaders are more absolute than any so-called absolute monarchs were, I meant that there is little or no opposition to the exercise of duly constituted executive power in contemporary governments. The same was not true under absolutism.

I think that people are confusing absolutism with autocracy, which are two different ideals. An autocrat has (supposedly) no limits on his / her executive power. That is not true of an absolutist. That being said, even an adaptive autocracy "might" conceivable have survived. It could be argued that Stalinist Russia was one such regime.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

I think that people are confusing absolutism with autocracy, which are two different ideals. An autocrat has (supposedly) no limits on his / her executive power. That is not true of an absolutist. That being said, even an adaptive autocracy "might" conceivable have survived. It could be argued that Stalinist Russia was one such regime.

Sorry, but you are wrong. A monarch with supposedly "no limits to his/her executive power" is the textbook definition of absolutism.
Autocracy is, AFAIK, synonymous with this, but I'm not 100% sure about the nature of the term (I've only seen it used as a reference to Eastern Roman or Russian monarchs, so far).

You could argue that a non-constitutional monarchy would not necessarily be absolutist, though.

 

[Gordy]

The problem is that if "Nation X" remains at an 18th century level in terms of economics and technology, then its chances of surviving 1930s Europe are almost nil. In which case the king/queen is replaced by external forces.

That is assuming that its possible for this gap to unfold in the first place. Personally I'd consider it impossible that two neighbours could exhibit such a gulf in terms of advancement. Good ideas have a tendency to spread after all.

You missed my point.

If every country stayed at 18th century development then there'd be no problem. You might say that's unrealistic but many parts of the world aren't even at an 18th century stage of development yet.

 

[kingmbutu]

Sorry, but you are wrong. A monarch with supposedly "no limits to his/her executive power" is the textbook definition of absolutism.
Autocracy is, AFAIK, synonymous with this, but I'm not 100% sure about the nature of the term (I've only seen it used as a reference to Eastern Roman or Russian monarchs, so far).

You could argue that a non-constitutional monarchy would not necessarily be absolutist, though.

Autocracy is not synonymous with absolutism. Louis XIV was an absolute monarch, but he was not an autocrat. An autocract has unlimited power and all power is concentrated in his/her hands. Absolute monarchs are actually limited in their power by any number of other interests, private, religious, political & customary. So it is quite possible for a monarch to be absolute without being autocratic. Your "textbook definition" is wrong for just that fact.

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy that lives on in the modern age, but it is not autocratic. There are customary, religious & political restraints on the monarch's power. This is true of every absolute monarchy and always has been.

 

[ComradeOm]

If every country stayed at 18th century development then there'd be no problem. You might say that's unrealistic but many parts of the world aren't even at an 18th century stage of development yet.

Well in that case if Europe had hit a brick wall in terms of development in the 17th century then the monarchs would have survived. Say for example the industrial revolution had occured in China instead.

 

[Gordy]

Well in that case if Europe had hit a brick wall in terms of development in the 17th century then the monarchs would have survived. Say for example the industrial revolution had occured in China instead.

In which case if China had had an expansionist foreign policy we'd be in trouble, but if they did not you could have feudalistic European socieites surviving a lot longer.

Of course it's not very likely.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Autocracy is not synonymous with absolutism. Louis XIV was an absolute monarch, but he was not an autocrat. An autocract has unlimited power and all power is concentrated in his/her hands. Absolute monarchs are actually limited in their power by any number of other interests, private, religious, political & customary. So it is quite possible for a monarch to be absolute without being autocratic. Your "textbook definition" is wrong for just that fact.

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy that lives on in the modern age, but it is not autocratic. There are customary, religious & political restraints on the monarch's power. This is true of every absolute monarchy and always has been.

Some definitions for "absolutism":
Wikipedia
Merriam Webster
Cyclopedia of Political Science
Encyclopaedia Britannica Online

Now please compare these to your definition of "autocracy".

 

[lordofthemark]

Absolutism faded in europe with development, as concessions were needed in view of growing middle class social power. But not long after, the middle classes in SOME european countries gave up on constitutionalism and turned to fascism, as a protection against left revolution. Now that wasnt quite the same as absolutism, because fascism involved mass mobilization, while IN THEORY absolutism didnt allow for that. And the actual fascist takeovers were either republics like Germany, or constitutional monarchies like Italy, where the king exerted little authority over the fascist state. (I dont know much about Romania in this period)

But is it possible to have a more or less direct jump from absolutist monarchy to fascism, with the monarchy remaining institutionally dominant, even if theres also a mass mobilzation movement in support.

I think so. The most likely possibility is Russia. Where the antisemitic, panslavic, Black Hundreds acted as a mass mobilization, fascist style movement, but in support of the institutional power of the monarchy.

Now even here it isnt quite direct, as Russia has a duma, albeit with limited power, in the years up to WW1.


Lets say Russia manages to avoid the Feb Revolution (the usual - no Rasputin, better luck at Tannenberg, smarter generals, less pressure from the west for offensives, Gallipoli goes better, whatever) and Germany loses, as per OTL, but this time the revolution wins in Germany - whether its called communist or not - Liebknecht and Luxembourg take power. The Tsar, using the fear of red revolution coming out of Germany, abolishes the duma, and uses the black hundreds, greatly expanded, to suppress opposition. Meanwhile Russia resumes the economic expansion/industrialization that began in the years before WW1.


Will the upper middle classes, frightened by whats happening in Germany, really defend constitutionalism? Look at their reactions in OTL in the months before the November rev. OTOH, will the black hundreds, insist on power in their own right, or be willing to be ballast for renewed tsarist absolutism?

 

[ComradeOm]

In which case if China had had an expansionist foreign policy we'd be in trouble, but if they did not you could have feudalistic European socieites surviving a lot longer.

Agreed. Quite an interesting "What if" scenario but, as you said, pretty unlikely.

Lets say Russia manages to avoid the Feb Revolution (the usual - no Rasputin, better luck at Tannenberg, smarter generals, less pressure from the west for offensives, Gallipoli goes better, whatever) and Germany loses, as per OTL, but this time the revolution wins in Germany - whether its called communist or not - Liebknecht and Luxembourg take power. The Tsar, using the fear of red revolution coming out of Germany, abolishes the duma, and uses the black hundreds, greatly expanded, to suppress opposition. Meanwhile Russia resumes the economic expansion/industrialization that began in the years before WW1.

The problem with this is that you need an awful lot of "What ifs" to go the right way to see this happen... most of which are impossible to occur. For example the terrible showing of the Imperial Army was a direct result of decades of cronyism and lack of professionalism - itself entirely due to the stagnant political system. By the same token, would the revolution in Germany have occurred without the Bolshevik one in Russia?

The Tsardom was finished by 1914 and no result from the war could have saved it. To be honest, and with the benefit of hindsight, I'm continually surprised that it even survived to 1917. The pressure from both the liberals and peasants for reform makes it almost inconceivable that the Tsar could have survived until 1920, nevermind the rise of fascism in the thirties. The only real difference that the war made was that it gave the Bolsheviks the opportunity to usurp the liberals.

 

[kingmbutu]

Some definitions for "absolutism":
Wikipedia
Merriam Webster
Cyclopedia of Political Science
Encyclopaedia Britannica Online

Now please compare these to your definition of "autocracy".

Yes, I see the issue more clearly now. Thank you for enlightening me...
I generally don't rely on dictionaries/ encyclopaedias to make these sorts of arguments since they are interpretations of certain particular strands of political thought and are not based necessarily on primary documentation. In any event, a government (whether monarchial or not) can be absolute without being autocratic, but an autocrat is always absolute. So when Louis XIV declared. "l'etat c'est moi." his reference was to himself as the embodiment of the French state. He was the sacred king which never died, hence the saying, the king is dead, long live the king. The same idea is at work in other forms of government wherein the state has a life of its own independent of the current executive. The king never dies, the state never dies.

Autocrats, however, are not synonymous with the state. They are seperate and distinct, but exercise absolute power over the appartus of the state. A subtle distinction perhaps, but a real one.

 

[lordofthemark]

Agreed. Quite an interesting "What if" scenario but, as you said, pretty unlikely.


The problem with this is that you need an awful lot of "What ifs" to go the right way to see this happen... most of which are impossible to occur. For example the terrible showing of the Imperial Army was a direct result of decades of cronyism and lack of professionalism - itself entirely due to the stagnant political system. By the same token, would the revolution in Germany have occurred without the Bolshevik one in Russia?

The Tsardom was finished by 1914 and no result from the war could have saved it. To be honest, and with the benefit of hindsight, I'm continually surprised that it even survived to 1917. The pressure from both the liberals and peasants for reform makes it almost inconceivable that the Tsar could have survived until 1920, nevermind the rise of fascism in the thirties. The only real difference that the war made was that it gave the Bolsheviks the opportunity to usurp the liberals.

IIUC the Imperial army actually managed to win a couple of battles during WW1, esp against the Austrians. And the Russian civilian economy responded in some ways to the demands of the war, for example huge increases in shell production. As you point out, despite all that was against them, they did hold out till 1917. I dont think its implausible (much less impossible) to strengthen them enough to hold out for 6 more months to a year.

Can there still be a revolution without Russia going first? I think there can be. It wont look at all the same, but there had been earlier revolutions in history. The lack of a role model is offset by an even worse war for the Germans. All you need is something like say, a general strike by starving German workers, an overreaction by the authorities, etc.

Pressure on Tsarism - yeah, but theres nothing like winning a war to affirm an existing govt. And in this TL the liberals are going STOP pressuring the monarchy - just as in OTL in Sept 1917 some uppermiddle class types were supporting a right wing coup, in this scen the people who in OTL supported the cadets see a red Germany, and are scared as hell. The peasants can be put down. (for a bonus, Lenin is killed on the streets of Berlin, where he goes to support radical revolution) In fact the harder the peasants push, the more the propertied classes rally around the regime.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

In fact the harder the peasants push, the more the propertied classes rally around the regime.

This alone is a huge factor, one that (together with nationalism) broke the back of the 1848 revolutions, I might add.