How old is your political system?

A question's arisen from time to time in discussions I've had with people who discuss this sort of thing (i.e. weird guys with too much time on their hands) and rather than do the research myself (read: lazy bastard), I'd like to leverage the large number of people here from countries other than America to figure it out.

So the question is: What countries have a political system that predates that of the United States, is still in place today and has had few or no significant changes?

So, a few of the countries we've discussed were:

UK: compare the power of the Monarchy in 1790 to today -- I think there have been significant changes, yes?

France: French Revolution occurred after the American Revolution.

Germany: Had that whole Hitler-phase.

Japan: significant changes after WWII.

China: changed to communism

Russia: changed from Tsar to communist to democracy to ... not quite sure how to describe it today, help me out?

But these are countries that we, in the US, know a bit more about than others. I honestly don't know enough about, say, Switzerland or Sweden or Portugal history to say.

So a couple of the things we decided did not count as significant change:

Civil war where the political system and process afterward remained essentially unchanged from before.

Invasion and/or occupation where the political system and process returned to its prior state essentially unchanged.

Change brought about through the existing, established process (an example being amending the US Constitution).

Assassination -- unless the result was a change in political process, not simply leadership.

For clarification, I'm not claiming there are none that predate the US, I'm asking for assistance in identifying those that do.

First of all, why is it important how old a political system is? Does that say anything about its quality? Would like to hear what you think about that.

Then: Switzerland
Basically it was a rather loose federation of so called "Stände" (now known as Cantons, i.e. what Americans call states). There were two different kinds of states, independent ones and those governed by the former. In 1815 this was changed by Napoleon to the first Helvetic republic. I think the idea behind it was to make sure that Switzerland remains a neutral place and not mess with the big ones in Europe (there were indeed some people who thought that Switzerland should do that, mess with the big european powers).
In 1848 the current constitution and governmental institutions were put into force, preceded by a civil war were liberal forces beat conservatives (read cities against the countryside or reformists against catholics).
The constitution was written with the American constitution as a basis (hence my question why it's important how old a system is. Because i think the blokes who wrote the Swiss constitution have learned from the Americans and made some points a little bit better. Just my humble opinion, tho.)
Since then nothing has changed, except for one state being created out of a part of an already existing one. And i think the guys did a great job back in 1848, because since then Switzerland has been one of the most stable countries, stayed out of both world wars and has transformed itself from a country of poor peasants who often were forced to emigrate out of sheer hunger to becoming one of the richest countries in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucy

First of all, why is it important how old a political system is? Does that say anything about its quality? Would like to hear what you think about that.

---

Okay, so the context of the question. It's not discussion about good or bad. This question typically arises in the context of discussions about how long the US has left to reasonably expect our system to last before it goes completely ass-over-tea-kettle and/or what systems, if any, have shown that they're long-lived enough that we should maybe look at borrowing from them.

In other words: Where are there some good ideas that are already well-proven over time? or: Shit, we're about to collapse under our own weight, so let's pack it in -- hey, what about trying ...?

It typically comes up when our disgust with the current direction we seem to be heading winds up with us musing about what would happen if we actually were able to scrap things and call a new Constitutional Convention.

As to why it's important in general, well, I'd say that the longer-lived a system is without significant upheaval speaks to its stability, which is an element of quality. For instance, say there's an hereditary dictatorship out there that's lasted four hundred years -- pretty stable, which some people like, but with cons that I wouldn't trade for that stability. We look at current systems, rather than historical, because our discussions focus on what works/doesn't-work in modern times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucy

The constitution was written with the American constitution as a basis (hence my question why it's important how old a system is. Because i think the blokes who wrote the Swiss constitution have learned from the Americans and made some points a little bit better. Just my humble opinion, tho.)

---

What aspects do you think were improvements? Were there any new things tried that you think were mistakes?

Sweden is formally a monarchy but the king/queen has no political power, not even that of asking some leading man (party leader) to form a new government - that belongs to the speaker of the parliament. Essentially the political punch of the regent went down around 1918-20 with full and equal suffrage - the last time a King had seriously tried to impose his will over the government, in 1914, it provoked a constitutional crisis. We might have ended up with a republic but nobody wanted a bloodied revolution - at least few people did and no one who carried much weight - so the monarchy remained and adapted smoothly to the new times. No government today is likely to abolish it.

The constitution as such wasn't changed by the diminishing power of the monarch*: a new constitution came about in 1974 and that one decrees that the King/Queen has no political power, they are essentially a national figurehead, but the real motive for building new was to get a more coherent statement of how the country is really ruled. The old constitution from 1809 (after a disastrous king had been ousted) - inspired by Montesquieu and the idea of separation of powers, like the American one - is arguably still the foundation of political change here and some of it lives on in the new text.

*With typical Swedish smoothness, through the 20th century the designation "His Majesty the King" in laws and order statutes was understood as meaning "the appropriate State authority for this law/this letter". I think this was accepted well before 1914; any Government Secretary or Regional Governor would sign for "His Majesty the King" ;)

By the way, France has probably changed its constitution more often and more sharply than any other European country. The present one is the Fifth Republic (installed by de Gaulle who came to power in 1958) and it's a sharp break with all the earlier ones - gives the President more power than any earlier, he is even more powerful on home ground than the US President. Notoriously, he can pronounce himself dictator, dissolve the Parliament and bypass the cabinet all on his own in a national crisis - I don't think the US No.1 can legally do that? (this paragraph of course has never yet been used)

Have to correct myself there: the "special powers" of the French President in a high emergency only allows the suspension of the second chamber of the Parliament (equivalent to the US House of Representatives), not the Senate, and he has to make consultations with the Prime Minsiter before using those measures.

There was some revision of the constitution encoded this summer, and one of the points was that after a month of Presidential "dictatorship" (the word is not formally used but that's the gist of it) a Constitutional Council can be called by the Chairman of the Senate or by petition of sixty parliamentarians, to examine if the reasons for the takeover are still relevant and are the objective of what the President is doing. What happens if they find he has overstepped fair reasons? On that, the revision is silent. I don't think the French President can be legally impeached (don't hold me as a witness on it though); he can't be taken before a normal court during his time in office.

Thanks Ragoczy this was an interesting brain teaser.

, i have been forced to look in the strangest of places for governmemntal systems that are still effectivly the same that predate the late 1700's.

Many will make an argujment for the United Kingdom and one could go round and round on it. It's has changed in small ways many ,many times but it's basic stucture has been the same for a much longer time than the U.S.A.'s. as in having a parlimentary system based on a constitutional monarchy.

The government of the roman chatholic church however ( ie the vatican) is arguably (for some refuse to accept its status as a nation in and of itself) the only other canidate for the position of worlds oldest and predates everyone elses governments by a thousand plus years.

Oooo ... I never considered the Vatican before. I'll have to give that some thought.

I'd be interested in hearing the viewpoint of someone more knowledgeable than I about British history on whether the changes in the power of the monarch constitute a significant difference in political structure.

I know I'm way out of my depth here, so don't expect any contributions from me: just questions.

It could be argued that the various governments of the British Isles go back pretty much as far as any. There was a significant change in 1066 after the Normans conquered England, but although William I introduced Norman customs, this was merely a case of one king replacing another. Of course there have been many changes - some profound, such as the Battle of Hastings already alluded to, but (apart from a few minor gaps) there has been a King of England since 827, whether he was Saxon, Dane, Norman, Welshman, Scot, or German. You have to go back a long way to find a truly English king, and maybe you can't, but that's by-the-by. Then you have Runnymede, where, in 1215, the English barons demanded and obtained restoration of ancient privileges. A change in the balance of power, but the King remained the ruler of the country, although Parliament now had a say in matters of taxation and justice. And gradually that power shift continued until a great struggle for superiority developed in the 2nd quarter of the 17th century, and eventually the Civil War led to the executuion of the King Charles I and the country was ruled by Oliver Cromwell under the Protectorate. That was a significant change: England became a republic, but this was shsort-lived, and when Cromwell's son proved an inept ruler, the monarchy was restored in 1660. So England was restored to a kingdom, and the House of Stuart resumed the throne in the person of Charles II. So the changes brought about by the Civil War did not change the system of government authorities, although it brought them under Parliamentary control. Just another shift or power.

After that, the evolution of England's sytem of government consisted primarily of granting the right to vote to more and more people. In 1689, by the Bill of Rights gave people rights through their representatives in Parliament. Then in 1832 the Reform Bill gave seats to counties or large towns, and gave vote to householders worth 10 pounds A further reform bill in 1867 gave the vote to country laborers and in 1918 the Representation of the People Act gave the right to vote to the women in Britain. By 1928, universal suffrage for adults obtained in Britain, bu the original instituions, created centuries before, still remain and still function, albeit in a very different manner than originally. Is this an argument for dating the English system back to 827?

In Scotland, King Kenneth Mac Alpin became king of the Picts and the Scots (=Irish). This left the Britons (related to the Welsh), the Angles (from Europe via England) and the Norse, but they all eventually became absorbed into the Kingdom. When the country wasn't fighting its routine wars with England, the aristocracy was busy murdering each other in an attempt to jostle themselves into power, and without meanng to denigrate the history of such a noble country, or to make slight of it, not much else happened until the Union of the Crowns in 1603 led to King James VI of Scotland becoming also King James I of England. Scotland's Parliament voted itself out of existence, but its Parliamentatirans simply moved to London and enacted Scotland's laws from there, with English help and guidance. The rest of Scotland's Establishment remain. The argument that Scotland's government has continued since 842 is less tenable than the case for England, but it can be made.

A case could also be made for the Isle of Man. Its government - the Tywald - goes back to ancient times, although Mann has been under the domination of, variously, Sweden, Scotland, Ireland and England. More than that, however, I do not know.

Looking over to the east, how old are the Tibetan and Thai systems of government, I wonder. And to the west, there are the Indian Nations which are, I believe, technically independent countries. How old are those tribal governments?

The Sultanate of Brunei (on Borneo) was founded in the 14th century and is still living by the same principle of absolute monarchy, or despotism. Though there's a government and a prime minister, the Sultan is still the unchallenged ruler, so this is one of the few "oldstyle monarchies" in the world. He's also one of the most fabulously rich men on the planet; the sultan is said to own 300 sports cars. Although Brunei was a British protectorate for nearly a hundred years, the way of rule and state institutions do not seem to have changed much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

The government of the roman chatholic church however ( ie the vatican) is arguably (for some refuse to accept its status as a nation in and of itself) the only other canidate for the position of worlds oldest and predates everyone elses governments by a thousand plus years.

---

True, the Church has been around for quite some time, but the Vatican, or Vatican City as a government, has only been around since the 1930's, the land being given to the Church for their tacit approval of Mussolini's regime.

oops i was wrong theoritical technicality on the vatican,,, it wasnt recognized as an idependent sovereign state until the treaty of Lateran in 1929. Alltough its form of rulership hadnt changed since the papal states were formed, it wasnt technically a nation in its own right until then.

as for Brunei its current goverment wasnt arguably in actual power until 1984 when Brittian granted it full independence and it was several times under the control of foriegn powers such as Brittian, japan and spain at various times throughout its history as were most of the far eastern and african nations at one time or another.

its monarchy may lay claim to a long lineage but its governemnt wasnt an unbroken chain

England is a fluid situation but its chain is mucho solid compared to most at least after Cromwells Government fell and it returned to a monarchy: its eaither when they had the first parliment after Cromwell's Governement fell or later when they became Great Brittian and layed claim to the same governmental system for all of the isles which would arguably be eaither 1707 when it became the United Kingdom of Brittian Scotland and Ireland, or its whenever the last monarch to actually rule over governemnt reigned as opposed to the mp running the entire show and thier own position was regulated to figure head which would be sometime after Victoria. In my opinion just becuase the Monarch stopped utilizing power doesnt mean the parlimentary Governmental system changed, so I am leaning towards the UK now.

I actually really love this topic, thanks again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ragoczy

What aspects do you think were improvements? Were there any new things tried that you think were mistakes?

---

I knew that would get me into some kind of predicament, lol. But i give it a try.

Like i already posted in another thread (http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=18112) what i like about Switzerlands constitution are the great many ways to participate directly, via initiatives or referendums. Sure, it makes the political process somewhat slow, sometimes even too slow. But it also keeps it balanced, extreme opinions or issues are very unlikely to survive for a long period or on a large scale.
Another good thing is that the constitution abandons the idea of a presidential system. We do not have one president, but seven "Bundesräte" (think of them as ministers), one of which is elected to be Switzerlands representative president for a one year term.
There is an ongoing discussion whether 7 ministers are enough or whether the workload is too much (for example, the minister of interior has to deal with the health system, the educational system, pensionary system, and some more). I think there should be a couple more. But of course that would mean to share power, not an easy thing for someone who has accumulated power.
Those ministers are elected not by the people directly, but by the members of the parlament. An initiative to the effect that the ministers should be elected directly by the people was voted down not long ago. I think the reason was that people saw how ugly electoral campaigns can get and wanted to avoid that (no offense meant, but America comes easily to my mind right now)

For over 60 years the ministers' jobs were given to the parties according to the same formula: 2 liberals, 2 catholic conservatives, 2 social democrats and 1 right wing *****. Since the right wing ***** have grown in the past years, they have now 2 seats, the catholics only 1.
That was quite a little revolution for our standards ;)

This system, called concordance, makes sure that the legislative process needs to enclose as many opinions as possible, so usually in a new law nobody feels really mistreated. However, things are shifting a bit, the political discussion has grown somewhat harsher.

I think the fact that Switzerlands cantons (states) are in many ways very independent is something the fathers (there were none or very few women involved, so "fathers" fits perfectly) of our constitution took very likely directly from the American one.

But then, they also made a huge mistake when they wrote the preamble which starts: "Im Namen Gottes des Allmächtigen...." which translates to "In the name of God Almighty..."
As an atheist i don't believe such stuff. As an ignostic all i can say is: Got proof of that? Really? And why should it matter?
And as a human with the ability to reason and being emotional (sometimes those two can even coexist): If there is a god and he cares about the constitution of a fly shit-sized country like Switzerland he has set his priorities dead wrong.

To sum it up: God has nothing to do with our constitution and should therefore be left out completely.