Enlightened despotism and parliamentary government

Visits to the great European art galleries give an impression of how early modern European monarchs presented themselves to the world — there are relatively few portraits of medieval monarchs and most of them seem to be of types rather than real persons.

There is now an emphasis on different qualities in rulers than previously: humanism, intellectual interests, building the country in peace rather than in war, although unfortunately, the latter may occasionally be necessary. Of course, this change does not necessarily correspond to any change in the character of the kings but it does tell us something about ideology and how the kings wanted to appear.

Moreover, the Enlightenment had obvious consequences for governments. Ear­lier, ecclesiastical and secular bureaucracies, combined with courts and palaces, had been sufficient to attach the elites to the king and secure the obedience of the common people. As we have seen, Louis XIV of France was very skilful in this field. Now, a real public opinion was emerging and a far larger number of people began to have political opinions and propagate them to others. They might even criticize kings and governments. In a few countries, like Britain, such criticism was a normal feature; there was a constant debate between the government and the opposition and all politicians had to make use of the new media to win elections and gain influence. Most countries, however, were ruled by more or less absolute monarchs who had to deal with the new situation. The most obvious remedy was of course censorship, which existed in most countries, but this was rarely sufficient. There were a number of indirect ways to express opinions. A better method was therefore to combine censorship with active participation in the debate.

The virtuoso in this was Frederick II of Prussia.¹⁸ He began his reign by abol­ishing censorship, although he soon had to reintroduce it (1743). However, he did not stop there; he used the new media actively. From the beginning of his reign, he systematically used foreign newspapers and publishing houses to defend his war against Austria, often writing articles himself that would be published anon­ymously. He also addressed the British public and later, during the Seven Years War, became a great hero in this country, as the defender of German Protestantism against Catholic Austria and France. The German market was supplied with various objects, snuff-boxes, knives and bracelets, with Frederick’s portrait.

The natural starting-point for a discussion of the practical consequences of the ideas of the Enlightenment is the Glorious Revolution in England.¹⁹ This was not only a change of dynasty and a defeat for the attempts to reintroduce Catholicism but also the beginning of a new form of government which eventually developed into the parliamentary system that later became current in most Western democ­racies. This development has three main aspects: (1) the increased importance and frequency of Parliament; (2) the formation of political parties; and (3) the forma­tion of cabinet government.

The first point was expressed already in the Declaration of Rights, issued by William and Mary on their accession to the British throne on 13 February 1689, in which the king’s power was explicitly restricted on several points and that of Par­liament increased. The king is no longer allowed to suspend or dispense with the laws, levy money or maintain a standing army without the consent of Parliament; elections to Parliament are to be free and various restrictions on individual freedom are to be abolished.²⁰ Parliament now met annually, was in session for longer than previously and demanded more work from its members.

Originally, the ruler was in principle free to choose his or her councillors. However, something resembling a modern government had gradually developed from the Elizabethan Privy Council in the sixteenth century and the king normally had a first minister as his second-in-command. The cabinet was originally a com­mittee of the Privy Council, a body that still exists but has little political impor­tance. With the increasing power of Parliament, it became important for the king to have the support of this body. This was the origin of the modern cabinet and its leader, the prime minister. Robert Walpole is usually considered to have been the first British prime minister, holding the office in the period 1721—42. His official title was First Lord of the Treasury, which is still the official — but rarely used — title of the British prime minister. It is no coincidence that the office originated under the first two Hanoverians who interfered little in politics and were happy to leave much of their duties to an indigenous politician. Walpole was also, like all his successors, a Member of Parliament.

Whereas Charles II had been able to rule without Parliament during the last years of his reign, this was no longer possible, as Parliament controlled the finances. Nor could the king any longer veto a Bill from Parliament; the last time this hap­pened was in 1708. At the same time, this control increased the power of the cabinet, as it was decided informally in 1706 and formally in 1713 that Parliament could not vote for money for any purpose except on a motion of a Minister of the Crown. With the increasing importance of Parliament, the prime minister had to relate to this body, persuading it to agree to the king’s policies and transmitting the opinion of Parliament to the king. This eventually led to the present parliamentary system, in which the king or queen — who still formally appoints the government — has to appoint one that is acceptable to Parliament. The last time a king tried to appoint a prime minister without support from Parliament was in 1834, when he had to give up. William III (1688—1702) appointed cabinets with members from both parties, but the normal practice in the following period was that only one party was represented.

Eighteenth-century Britain was far from democratic according to modern stan­dards. Not only was one of the Houses of Parliament, the House of Lords, com­posed of non-elected members, the bishops and the greatest lords, but in addition, the lower one, the House of Commons, only to a very limited degree represented the people. Only a minority of the population had the right to vote, 400,000 of a population that increased from 7 to 10.5 million during the eighteenth century. Actually, Parliament had become increasingly less representative over the centuries. The districts with the right to elect had been the same since the Middle Ages, which meant that the new cities based on trade and industry in the north were largely without representation, while small villages in the south had a dispropor­tionate influence (‘Rotten boroughs’).

Nevertheless, the country had introduced a series of changes in the modern direction, to the extent that Fukuyama regards it as the first example of accoun­table government.²² The courts of law were independent of the king and Parlia­ment; if the government wanted to punish its critics, it had to approach a court of law which might come to another conclusion. The acceptance of the party system with a government and an opposition is also an important expression of a new understanding of politics. Since classical antiquity, the word ‘party’ had a bad sound. A politician was supposed to act in the interest of the community as a whole, not of a special class or group. The same was the case in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, except for some steps in the modern direction in Machiavelli. In the eighteenth century, there was still no idea of parties as the expression of clearly defined social groups or classes. As the electorate was very limited and almost all politicians belonged to the elite, there was little incentive in that direc­tion; but there were different opinions on important political or religious issues, such as the relationship between the Church of England and respectively Catholics and Protestant dissenters, Stuart or Hanoverian succession, war or peace or, in the case of the former, which alliance? Whereas earlier, there had been a thin line between opposition and treason, opposition now became a normal and necessary part of the political system, expressed in the term His/Her Majesty’s loyal opposition.

The parliamentary system also had its advantages from point of view of political efficiency. As already Aristotle put it, government by one good and wise man might be excellent, but in practice, this will happen so rarely that it is better to have an elected government consisting of more than one person. Britain entered a period of greatness when ruled mostly by mediocre kings, whereas weak kings had disastrous effects on France and Spain during the same period. On the other hand, the British system was a demanding one. It is not easy to get a minority to respect the rule of a majority and there is no guarantee that the system will produce cap­able rulers. There is also the additional problem of making people obey somebody not unlike themselves; although in this case, it was an advantage for Britain to be a monarchy; the king’s importance as formally the highest authority should not be underestimated. By contrast, the prime minister only became a public figure in the first half of the nineteenth century. Earlier, he mainly acted within Parliament. He did not conduct election campaigns and he rarely addressed the general public.

In the eighteenth century, the closest parallel to Britain was Sweden.²³ As we have seen, the Swedish Diet had existed in largely the same form continuously since 1527, with predecessors some centuries further back in history. In the same way as in Denmark, an unsuccessful and costly war (1675—79) increased the power of the king. Also similar to Denmark, the king received support against the nobility from the commoners, who were represented in three of the four houses of the Diet. A new and greater military disaster, the defeat in the Great Nordic War (1700—21) led to a reaction against the royal regime. After Charles XII’s sudden death from an enemy bullet during the siege of Fredriksten in Norway on 11 December 1718,²⁴ the king’s power was strictly limited. The Diet assumed a position similar to the British Parliament and the king was no longer free to elect his councillors, but depended on the will of the Diet. As in Britain, this also led to the development of political parties, called the Hats and the Caps — the names were first used during the Diet in 1738—39. The main division between them was based on foreign policy. The Hats were more in favour of war and wanted an alliance with France, the Caps wanted peace and an alliance with Britain. Socially, the Hats were dominated by the high nobility, while the lower nobility and the burghers often supported the Caps. However, like the British parties, they were held toge­ther more by personal loyalty and ambition than by a consistent political ideology or organization.

Another difference from Britain was the composition of the Diet which con­formed to that of the medieval estates. In was divided into four houses, respectively of the nobles, the clergy, the burghers and the peasants. The house of nobles was the largest, consisting of the heads of all the noble kindred or their deputies, more than a thousand altogether. The three others mainly consisted of elected repre­sentatives. As each house had one vote, however, the three non-noble estates were able to outvote the nobles, which explains the alliance of the king and the Diet against the noble council.

The sudden outburst of a something resembling parliamentary government after more than 40 years of almost absolute royal power seems surprising and very different from contemporary Britain. Nevertheless, as we have seen, the situation around 1720 has parallels further back in history and the changes seem a natural reaction against the disastrous consequences of the king's policy in the previous period. However, the Period of Liberty proved to be briefer than in Britain. Gustaf III’s coup in 1772 increased the king’s power, abolished the party system and once more made the king free to choose his own councillors, although he did not gain absolute power. Gustafs murder in 1792 led to a new regency for his son, Gustaf IV Adolf, who was later (1809) deposed as the result of the defeat in the war against Russia that led to the loss of Finland. This led to a new and more modern constitution, although not to a govern­ment dependent on a majority in the Diet. This was not introduced in Sweden until the early twentieth century.