History of Parliamentarism

The origins of the modern concept of prime ministerial government go back to the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707 - 1800) and The Parliamentary System in Sweden 1721 - 1772 , that coincided with each other.

In theory, power resided in the monarch, who chaired cabinet and chose ministers. Inreality, 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. 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, though these parliaments themselves have often evolved or were reformed from their 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.

India

In very ancient India, during the Vedic civilization, there are mentions of two Parliament-like gatherings of the Indo-Aryan kingdoms called the "Sabha" and the "Samiti". During the time of the Buddha, many states were even tribal republics, called the "Sanghas". The Sabha has been interpreted by the historians as a representative assembly of the elect—the important men of the clan, which ran day-to-day business with the king. The Samiti seems to be a gathering of "all" the male members of the kingdom, and probably convened only for the ratification/election of a new king. The two largely democratic institutions, which kept a check on the absolutism of the king, were given a sacred position, and have been called the daughters of the deity Prajapati in the Vedas, the holiest of all Hindu scriptures and the earliest Indo-European literature. However, these democratic institutions became weaker as republics became larger and elected chieftainship moved towards hereditary and absolute monarchy. The Sabha and the Samiti bear almost no mention in later literature. After this, India would not have any democratic legislature till the British times, culminating in its modern democratic Parliament (whose two Houses still bear the name of "Sabha").

Caliphate

Traditional Sunni Islamic lawyers agree that "shura", loosely translated as 'consultation of the people', was a function of the Caliphate, where the Majlis al Shura advised the caliph. The importance of this is premised by the following verses of the Qur'an:

cite quran|42|38|expand=no|quote=...those who answer the call of their Lord and establish the prayer, and who conduct their affairs by Shura. [are loved by God]

cite quran|3|159|expand=no|quote=...consult them (the people) in their affairs. Then when you have taken a decision (from them), put your trust in Allah

The majlis is also the means to elect a new caliph. Al-Mawardi has written that members of the majlis should satisfy three conditions: they must be just, they must have enough knowledge to distinguish a good caliph from a bad one, and must have sufficient wisdom and judgment to select the best caliph. Al-Mawardi also said in emergencies when there is no caliphate and no majlis, the people themselves should create a majlis, select a list of candidates for caliph, then the majlis should select from the list of candidates. Some modern interpretations of the role of the Majlis al Shura include those by Islamist author Sayyid Qutb and by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, the founder of a transnational political movement devoted to the revival of the Caliphate. In an analysis of the shura chapter of the Qur'an, Qutb argued Islam requires only that the ruler consult with at least some of the ruled (usually the elite), within the general context of God-made laws that the ruler must execute. Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, writes that Shura is important and part of the "the ruling structure" of the Islamic caliphate, "but not one of its pillars," and may be neglected without the Caliphate's rule becoming unIslamic. Non-Muslims may serve in the majlis, though they may not vote or serve as an official.

France: Swinging between Presidential & 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 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, partly imposed by the democratic victors, France and England, 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 however already for long fuelled the political Left's struggle for Democracy and Parliamentarism. In the radicalized 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 a 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 the 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.

ee also

*List of democracy and elections-related topics

External links

* [http://www.histparl.ac.uk History of Parliament]