Which Country Has the Most Stable Government in Modern History?
I was listening to another podcast by Russ Roberts in which the guest made a very interesting point. I’ll put his point in the form of a quiz question: what country’s government has survived without a regime change caused by violence longer than any other?
Answer below the fold.
The United States of America.
I haven’t independently verified the guest’s claim, but I can’t think of an example offhand that proves him wrong.
If he is correct, our country’s incredibly stable government must be a result of the checks and balances that our founding fathers so wisely created as the foundation of our system.
Now, we have a president who is unilaterally rewriting laws and taking other illegal actions that upset the careful balance instituted by our founders. The stakes are far are far higher than the future of Obamacare and the so-called “right” to health insurance. The future of our country is at risk.
Some cheerful thoughts for you this afternoon.
UPDATE: Several commenters offer alternative answers in the comments, but many of those are refuted by other commenters. The consensus opposition answer is the United Kingdom. But, while I am happy to be corrected on this point if shown wrong, doesn’t the United Kingdom date back to merely 1801?
UPDATE x2: D’oh! I said “Great Britain” when I meant the United Kingdom. Thanks to Milhouse for correcting me.
The United Kingdom, if you don’t count the subtraction of part of Ireland.
Since 1688.
Or maybe Andorra?
Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42) — 8/18/2013 @ 1:03 pmOver the lat 80 years the central government has managed to “reinterpret” the constitution to grant itself powers the Founding Fathers never intended.
There has already been a revolution in the US. It was accomplished through creating an unaccountable bureaucracy and manipulating the courts to permit what previous was impermissible.
No government this large can be constitutional. Bureaucracies exist to accumulate power. Courts and judges inevitably veer into a pro-statist, anti-liberty position.
Levin’s newest book may offer a chance out of this mess without “regime change” but you can bet the powers-that-be will fight any such effort tooth and nail.
WarEagle82 (2b7355) — 8/18/2013 @ 1:04 pmThe United States had a violent change of government between 1776 and 1783, and there was also a Civil War between 1861 and 1865, which however did not affect the continuity of government outside the 11 states that seceded and Indian territory.
England however did not have a violent change of government going back atr least that far. The last attempt was made in 1745. 1688 wasn’t too violent.
The English Civil War was between 1642 and 1649 or so. The Restoration of the monarcy was peaceful.
Theer was a Civil war, now in the news with the coontorversy over the burial of King Richard III, around 1485.
This however was still not an external invasion.
Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42) — 8/18/2013 @ 1:07 pmThe United States had its capital burnt in 1814.
Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42) — 8/18/2013 @ 1:07 pmWhat the United States is most continuous in is democracy.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan liked to say that oldest continously functioning political party of the Democratic Partry in the United States. Or what’s now called the Democratic Party because Jefferson called it the Republican Party. (the name was deliberately revived in 1854 by anti-slavery forces)
Congressional records refer to the Democratic-Republican party but it was never called that.
Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42) — 8/18/2013 @ 1:10 pmThe Vatican!
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 8/18/2013 @ 1:12 pm“The United States of America.”
Only the part that wasn’t in the Confederacy. They needed violence and regime change.
pete (c770a7) — 8/18/2013 @ 1:17 pmMuch as I’d like to agree with the guest, it seems to me that the government of Great Britain / The United Kingdom has been stable for longer than the United States. The last violent regime change on that “sceptered isle” was the English Civil War ca. 1650.
DavidMB (9a9967) — 8/18/2013 @ 1:17 pmDavid, the current government of the UK effectively begins with Queen Victoria. That’s when the monarch ceased to rule.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 8/18/2013 @ 1:41 pmOn the UK, does the collapse of the ruled empire count?
steveg (794291) — 8/18/2013 @ 1:48 pmI agree Great Britain has had the most stable government dating back to at least the Acts of Union in 1707 and probably the Glorious Revolution in 1688, which established the supremacy of Parliament and its right to choose England’s monarch. Also, if we include more than countries, the Virginia General Assembly was established in 1619.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/18/2013 @ 1:52 pmThe “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 can be easily characterized as in fact a Dutch invasion and conquest.
But the United Kingdom still beats the United States.
gahrie (3fff08) — 8/18/2013 @ 1:53 pmThe claim is on firmer ground if we eliminate the irrelevant “violence” distraction and focus on which current country has had the longest sustained period of governmental hegemony. By that criterion, the United States wins by a lightyear.
While Great Britain did not have any violent upheaval during the American era, it’s inarguable that it was a true monarchy, with a ruling king or queen — despite some checks by Parliament — during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; but in the twentieth century, the UK shifted to a parliamentary democracy with the monarch being nothing but a figurehead. When was the last time a British monarch actually vetoed a law enacted by Parliament? Probably during Victoria’s reign.
That cosmic shift was as momentous as if we were to strip the POTUS of all power over the executive and the military, remove his power of veto, and make him a ceremonial meet and greeter. British hegemony under Charles II, the Hanovers, and Victoria was fundamentally different than it is today.
By contrast, although we have betimes reinterpreted the Constitution or amended it, the basic hegemonic structure of it remains as it was in 1787, despite the introduction of political parties. We have more secretariats; we have a standing military; we have an income tax; but none of these fundamentally alters the hegemony of the American government, just the specific policies and powers.
Sometimes the President has a little more power (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Obama), sometimes Congress has the ascension. The Court has much more power than imagined by the Founders, but even that was inherent in the original document: Marbury v. Madison was a clarification, not an insurrection.
None of the foregoing changes the fundamental constitutional structure of the United States: Three coequal branches of government (even if one branch is sometimes more equal than others) that can provide checks and balances to each other; a strong, unitary Executive; Congress still holding the purse strings; presidential elections every four years, senatorial every six years, congressional every two; a federalist system whereby the federal government has no general police power, but the states do; and so forth.
Details change, but the fundamentals are the same since the Constitution was ratified.
Men go and come, but America abides.
Dafydd
Dafydd the Hair Splitter (763797) — 8/18/2013 @ 1:53 pmI figured the United Kingdom would take the cake, but I think Steven Den Beste might win the award by suggesting the Vatican.
Jim S. (9916d2) — 8/18/2013 @ 2:41 pmSan Marino can be traced back unchanged at least to 1631. Sweden hasn’t had any violent regime changes for 1000 years.
johnl (a36123) — 8/18/2013 @ 3:04 pmI thought The Roundheads settled that question in 1651.
Craig Mc (6cafb4) — 8/18/2013 @ 3:38 pmGustav III of Sweden was assassinated in 1792 (A Masked Ball, by Verdi is about that event). It was an attempt to restore the Constitutional Monarchy which had been the government before Gustav became a despot.
Mike Giles (3b469a) — 8/18/2013 @ 3:42 pmJohnl mentions San Marino. The CIA World Factbook says San Marino claims to be the world’s oldest Republic.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/18/2013 @ 3:53 pmThat cosmic shift was as momentous as if we were to strip the POTUS of all power over the executive and the military, remove his power of veto, and make him a ceremonial meet and greeter.
Um, can we try it out and see how we like it? At least until January 2017?
JVW (23867e) — 8/18/2013 @ 4:41 pmI figured the United Kingdom would take the cake, but I think Steven Den Beste might win the award by suggesting the Vatican.
Yeah, but I think the Vatican only dates back as an official country to the post-World War I era.
JVW (23867e) — 8/18/2013 @ 4:44 pmOK, I get Steven’s distinction now. 1651 meant that monarchs couldn’t govern without parliament’s consent, but officially they still governed. Charles I might not have appreciated the distinction.
Craig Mc (6cafb4) — 8/18/2013 @ 4:47 pmMid 70’s
No Grandchildren.
One and maybe both my kids voted for Obama.
One is vocal in supporting everything he does.
Enough money to survive W/O attracting attention.
What happens in 20 years? Who cares?, I don’t.
glenn (647d76) — 8/18/2013 @ 5:23 pmglenn,
I’m curious why you think your kids’ politics are so different from your politics.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/18/2013 @ 5:51 pmThe Thai monarchy dates from 1238, though the constitution is from 1932.
SteveM (657d6c) — 8/18/2013 @ 6:16 pmModern Chicago has been ruled by Democrats since at least 1955 and now its royalty rules this nation. Does that count?
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 8/18/2013 @ 6:46 pmHow old is Canada?
scrubone (e7e0ea) — 8/18/2013 @ 7:07 pmCanada became fully independent in 1982. Until then the governing authority came from an act of the British Parliament passed in 1867.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 8/18/2013 @ 7:12 pmThe modern British system began with [object TextRange].
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 8/18/2013 @ 7:15 pmWhat the heck was that?
The modern British system began with The Reform Act of 1832.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 8/18/2013 @ 7:17 pmAnd… the last anti-pope died in 1449 and there hasn’t been any dispute over the papacy since (much), which is why I nominated the Vatican. It was formally acknowledged as a separate nation in 1929, but it’s existed in Rome in some form since 480 AD.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 8/18/2013 @ 7:23 pmThe last violent change of government in Canada was in the Seven Years War 1756-1763. Of course it wasn’t self-governing at that point.
Sammy Finkelman (7c54bd) — 8/18/2013 @ 7:27 pmComment by Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 8/18/2013 @ 7:23 pm
the last anti-pope died in 1449 and there hasn’t been any dispute over the papacy since (much), which is why I nominated the Vatican. It was formally acknowledged as a separate nation in 1929, but it’s existed in Rome in some form since 480 AD.
The Vatican became a very small territory I think in 1870.
The continuity of government probably does go back much further. But the Papal states were invaded a number of times after 1449. And there was a significant interruption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_and_the_Catholic_Church
Sammy Finkelman (7c54bd) — 8/18/2013 @ 7:33 pmGood point about Napoleon. Oh, well…
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 8/18/2013 @ 7:55 pmI guessed the US and I think the reason is federalism and our huge size.
The different states create tension vis-a-vis the feds, and the geography makes it all but impossible to get a mass uprising going.
It all makes for a constant state of political warfare, but that’s better than actual warfare.
Patricia (be0117) — 8/18/2013 @ 8:13 pmLike Athens, Rome, etc.
AZ Bob (c11d35) — 8/18/2013 @ 8:58 pmI think the RECOVERY ACT of 2009, AND, the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT of 2009, are both LIBERTY ENSURING documents that are WELL THOUGHT OUT and FINANCIALLY VIABLE.
Gus (0870d3) — 8/18/2013 @ 9:03 pmI also think that Barack Obama is an HONEST MAN, and that Obama’s LOVELY WIFE, lost her law license, BECAUSE THE WHITE MAN was trying to KEEP HER DOWN.
Gus, that was a decent parody of our usual hacktastic trolls.
SPQR (768505) — 8/18/2013 @ 9:19 pmIf not for Napoleon, I would have nominated Switzerland. Dang that sawed off Corsican runt.
nk (875f57) — 8/18/2013 @ 9:38 pmHa, nk, I was thinking the same.
SPQR (768505) — 8/18/2013 @ 9:44 pmSPQR. Thank you sir!!
Gus (0870d3) — 8/18/2013 @ 9:45 pmWhat about the Principality of Monaco? The Grimaldis have ruled it since 1297. The CIA World Factbook gives 1419 as the start of permanent rule by the House of Grimaldi. True, their rule was interrupted by Napoleon and then by the Congress of Vienna for a total of 70 years.
But none of those interruptions, violent or otherwise, ever caused regime change. Monaco always went back to the Grimaldis.
Even though Monaco first adopted a constitution about 100 years ago, the monarchy retains a great deal of power.
Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/18/2013 @ 10:03 pmYeah, I also was thinking the Swiss.
After we answer this one mebee we can nail the most stable isotope of Astatine?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/18/2013 @ 10:04 pmAn article from the July 2, 1922 NYT:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F30E12FA3B5D14738DDDAB0894DF405B828EF1D3
Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/18/2013 @ 10:43 pmWho says blogs are not educational? Just this year I learned there’s an element called holmium (Ho) and now astatine. Burning up as soon as it comes into existence from the heat of its own nature. Gotta be a metaphor for something.
nk (875f57) — 8/18/2013 @ 10:55 pmIIRC, the last Royal veto was in 1705, though I think some discretion was used in appointing a Prime Minister as recently as the 20th century — see some of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_V#Later_life .
San Marino was my thought.
Steven (5d48d5) — 8/18/2013 @ 11:16 pmIf the standard is merely whether there’s been “regime change caused by violence,” then the U.K.’s stability streak certainly was disrupted as recently as 1990, when the Poll Tax Riots brought down Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher (albeit only in favor of fellow Tory John Major, not Labor).
They were indeed violent. As it happens, I was quite literally in the middle of them on Saturday, March 31, 1980, when my then-wife and I departed from a West End matinee performance of “Miss Saigon” by a theater back exit. We’d only paused a moment to marvel at the broken store windows and the cars turned on their sides or upside down, many on fire, when found ourselves suddenly swamped by a crowd of hundreds of panicky Londoners, all running at top speed in the same direction — some carrying clubs or bricks, others carrying looted merchandise, others in empty-handed blind flight.
We pressed our backs to the wall and let them pass. Then we saw why they were running: Pursuing them, and therefore about to overtake us, was a solid wall of Bobbies in full riot gear — helmets, truncheons, chin-to-toe plexiglass shields — advancing on us at a very fast trot. In my head I practiced saying, “Wait, I’m a Yank, please don’t hurt me!” But I decided I couldn’t expect to get that out and have it understood during the space between one of those truncheons rising and falling, so I grabbed my wife’s elbow and we, too, ran.
We took every available 90-degree turn, alternating right and left, to simply try to escape the crowds. Finally we saw, and successfully hailed, a London taxi. I’ve always loved cabs and cab drivers in London, and I was never so glad to see one of those familiar, ugly, comfortable, and innocuous vehicles. The cabbie skirted the edges of the mob and police successfully to deliver us back to the Four Seasons at the edge of Hyde Park, whence the protesters had just been driven. Although it was still only a few hundred yards away from us, we watched the rest of the riot play out on a big-screen projection TV in the Four Seasons’ lobby.
By an odd coincidence, also present in the lobby with us was American actor John Travolta. He was in very stylish (meaning, for 1990, very skimpy) running clothes, as were several other fit and lean young gentlemen in his company.
Not a day I’ll forget.
Beldar (a5a1b4) — 8/19/2013 @ 6:56 am(Apologies for the obvious typo above, I said “1980” once when I ought have said “1990.”)
Beldar (a5a1b4) — 8/19/2013 @ 6:57 amDoes that constitute regime change, Beldar? After all, the system of government remained in place and the only change was to replace the existing leader in the manner authorized by law.
If removing a particular leader counts as regime change, then wouldn’t that also include every assassinated President?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/19/2013 @ 7:11 amGood point, DRJ.
And I am voting Switzerland. The Civil War and reconstruction violently changed America’s form of government. The winners imposed puppet regimes on the conquered States, declaring their prior lawful governors, and Constitutional representatives in Congress and the Senate, traitors. There was a restoration, of sorts, but there was radical change brought on by violence.
Switzerland as the longest-existing democracy and longest-existing stable government.
nk (875f57) — 8/19/2013 @ 7:24 amI take this question to mean what is the world’s oldest continually-existing constitutional arrangement. Obviously constitutions can be reformed, sometimes drastically, but as long as the basic laws are not amended, that counts as continually existing.
The Bill of Rights of 1688/89 is usually given as the birth date of the British constitution but alternatively we can use 1707, the Union of the Scottish and English Parliaments.
Thailand and Sweden are probably the only states in the world that have never been fully invaded and conquered, but although the Thai royal family is very old, the modern Thai state only dates back to 1798. Similarly, Sweden’s modern constitution only dates back to 1810. Iceland and the Isle of Man contest the honour of who has the world’s oldest Parliament, but neither state has been continually independent.
I’m going to say that San Marino is the champion, with a Republican constitution, which is fundamentally still in operation, going back to 1600. San Marino was not invaded or occupied during either the Napoleonic Wars, World War I and World War II, so the operation of the constitution was never suspended.
So for me the answer is
1) San Marino – 1600
Martin Adamson (f9c0c8) — 8/19/2013 @ 7:47 am2) Great Britain – 1707
3) United States of America – 1789
The Vatican is not correct. The Papacy did indeed used to control a large area of central Italy – known as the Papal States, parts of which did indeed go back to the murky days of the fall of the Roman Empire. AS others had said, this state was invaded during the Napoleonic wars, and most of it became part of France. The first unification of Italy was took place in 1866, but did not include Rome or the other territories, which were invaded and conquered by the new Italian Army in 1870. The Pope was stripped of all his temporal powers and his territory. So the Vatican that was created by the Lateran Treaty of 1929 was effectively a new state.
Martin Adamson (f9c0c8) — 8/19/2013 @ 7:48 amSwitzerland is not correct either. Although some of the individual cantonal (ie State) constitutions go back many centuries, the modern Federal Constitution only dates back to 1874 or 1891, depending on how pedantic you want to be.
Martin Adamson (f9c0c8) — 8/19/2013 @ 7:51 amAnd I should say that Switzerland actually had their own Civil War as recently as 1847, when the country basically broke down into a Catholic/Protestant split.
Martin Adamson (f9c0c8) — 8/19/2013 @ 7:54 amI have to go with Martin on this one.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/19/2013 @ 7:57 amThe Grimaldi royal family have controlled Monaco for a long time, but again their power was interrupted during the Napoleonic Wars, when the country became part of France.
Martin Adamson (f9c0c8) — 8/19/2013 @ 7:57 amNo one has mentioned Iceland. The Icelandic parliament (“Althing”) goes back to the 11th century, I believe.
T (13d0fd) — 8/19/2013 @ 8:10 amIceland was under Norwegian rule in the 13th century and then absolute Danish rule in the 14th. The Althing was abolished, and it wasn’t reestablished until the 19th century when the Danish monarchy granted Iceland home rule.
I thought of Iceland, too, but I checked into its history last night.
Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/19/2013 @ 8:27 amYes, but that interruption didn’t cause regime change. In any case Monaco celebrated 700 years of the Grimaldi family’s reign in 1997. That’s a long time.
Although I do now think San Marino has a better claim.
Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/19/2013 @ 8:33 amI don’t think Monaco qualifies because it is not a fully sovereign country, not being permitted an independent foreign policy etc.
SPQR (de95d8) — 8/19/2013 @ 8:44 amIn that case, I go with the consensus. The most stable isotope of astatine is AT-210 with a half-life of 8.1 hours.
nk (875f57) — 8/19/2013 @ 9:08 am*At-210*
nk (875f57) — 8/19/2013 @ 9:09 amPope Pius VI died a prisoner in 1799. Yes, the Vatican elects a new pope upon the death (or abdication…)of the old one ad infinitum, but popes have often been political figures, not just religious, as in modern times. Their deaths have likewise been, shall we say, accelerated due to competing political claims. I’d suggest that by doing so, a regime change had indeed taken places, even if the structure remains intact.
NeoCon_1 (062f23) — 8/19/2013 @ 9:47 amThere are several issues conflated here.
For instance, “no regime change by violence” versus “no extra-constitutional regime change”.
France in 1958 went through an extra-constitutional power change, but there was no violence. The restoration of the Spanish monarchy after Franco was non-violent.
Britain has not had its regime changed by violence since 1688, but the form of government has changed substantially.
OTOH, certain elements of the regime have been continuous throughout. For instance, I believe that some of the hereditary peerages of 1688 have continuously sat in the House of Lords. (In the last reform, the hereditary peers lost their individual seats, but were authorized to elect several of their number as representative peers, so they still have some power.)
Britain (unlike almost every continental state) has not been occupied and had its regime shut down or replaced.
Sweden also has avoided this. However, Sweden went through an internal revolution in 1809-1810, when King Gustav IV Adolph was deposed and the constitution of 1772 was abolished.
Britain has also had major constitutional changes (the Reform Act of 1832; the de facto renunciation of the powers of the Crown), but these were peaceful and constitutional. So were the 12th and 17th Amendments in the U.S.; but not the adoption of the Constitution, which was peaceful, but ignored restrictions in the Articles of Confederation.
San Marino was accupied during the Napoleonic Wars, and again during WW II. As to the Papal States/Vatican – occupied during the Napoleonic Wars, and stripped of virtually all territory in 1860 and 1870 – ceasing to be a country. (The “Sovereign Order of Malta” has comparable continuity, though it now exists only on paper.)
With all respect, I think Britain has the record.
One might argue that Ireland’s independence in 1921 was a “regime change by violence” for part of the United Kingdom. However, if secessions count, so should annexations achieved by force; the U.S. annexed Puerto Rico and Guam by force in 1898.
Rich Rostrom (47c4e2) — 8/19/2013 @ 9:50 amInteresting discussion here. How do those of you claiming Great Britain deserves the title respond to the objection that Great Britain dates back only to 1801?
Patterico (092b21) — 8/19/2013 @ 10:04 amUPDATE: Several commenters offer alternative answers in the comments, but many of those are refuted by other commenters. The consensus opposition answer is Great Britain. But, while I am happy to be corrected on this point if shown wrong, doesn’t Great Britain date back to merely 1801?
Patterico (092b21) — 8/19/2013 @ 10:08 am“The Civil War and reconstruction violently changed America’s form of government. The winners imposed puppet regimes on the conquered States, declaring their prior lawful governors, and Constitutional representatives in Congress and the Senate, traitors. There was a restoration, of sorts, but there was radical change brought on by violence.”
And then a sympathizer of the traitors enacted regime change by violence, assassinating Lincoln.
Is the lesson that the system is capable of dealing with treason and rebellion with the tools the founders gave, such as by quelching rebellion and amending the constitution? If the US can survive massive treason in defense of slavery, then surely this is not such a big deal in comparison:
“Now, we have a president who is unilaterally rewriting laws and taking other illegal actions that upset the careful balance instituted by our founders”
ahill (9031e1) — 8/19/2013 @ 10:18 amNo so sure we can count Sweden. They were part of a “personal union” with Norway that was ripped asunder in 1810. Weren’t they also under a duke of Russia for awhile?
Whitehall (47949b) — 8/19/2013 @ 10:21 amI realize I’m a little late to the party, but I’ll my money on one of the Arab-Muslim states. After all, they do practice “the Religion of Peace.”
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 8/19/2013 @ 10:23 amStable government sometimes means gerrymandered congressional and legislative districts where no orderly transfer of power is possible.
Not a coincidence that California Democrats hold a majority in those caucuses. Or is the plural form Cauci (cockeye)?
papertiger (c2d6da) — 8/19/2013 @ 10:43 amNorway and Sweden split peacefully in 1905. The earlier thing was a union with Denmark.
Sammy Finkelman (0c6103) — 8/19/2013 @ 10:44 amThe Swedes put a general of Napoleon on the throne about 1810 too. I think that was a way to avoid a French invasion.
Whitehall (47949b) — 8/19/2013 @ 11:01 amIn 1801, the British Parliament passed a Union Act which created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland – adding Ireland to the already established Great Britain (England, Wales, Scotland).
However, the laws and principles that the UK operates under (since it doesn’t have a single Constitution / Constitutional document like the US) were established during the Glorious Revolution of 1688 – and they remain in effect to the present times.
I don’t believe, post the Glorious Revolution, there was a regime change caused by violence involving the UK – the addition of Ireland in 1801 being fundamentally no different than the addition of the Republic of Texas to the United States in 1845.
That’s why I would answer the question as the UK being the nation operating the longest (1688) with the United States as the second longest (1789) without a regime change caused by violence.
Athos (920910) — 8/19/2013 @ 11:02 amwhichever one is indeed the most stable you can be sure the corrupt amoral piggy piggy American government is working very hard to destabilize it
it’s a very trashy little country anymore plus all the NSA spypoofters have to justify their salaries somehow, and the more countries they destabilize the more necessary Useful Tools like Meghan’s coward daddy will proclaim them to be
happyfeet (c60db2) — 8/19/2013 @ 11:24 amDemocratic Republic of the Congo!
… oh, wait, I misread the question.
Mitch (341ca0) — 8/19/2013 @ 11:37 amOn the question of the British constitution, the theory is that it came into being in 1688/9, the Scottish Parliament voted to be governed by it in 1707, and the Irish Parliament did the same in 1801. In the same way 37 Republics, States and Territories have voted to be governed by the US Constitution since 1789. If you apply the logic that the United Kingdom only came into being in 1801 to the case of the USA, you come to the conclusion that the USA has only existed since 1960 when Hawaii and Alaska joined.
Martin Adamson (dc51fe) — 8/19/2013 @ 12:15 pmComment by Patterico (092b21) — 8/19/2013 @ 10:08 am
doesn’t Great Britain date back to merely 1801?
The Act of Union was actually passed in the year 1800, but Ireland was already part of it (and a large portion of Ireland was not part of it, or nmot really part of it, after 1922 when it became the Irish Free State, and violence and even proclamation of a rebel state preceded it.
So change the answer to England.
Sammy Finkelman (0c6103) — 8/19/2013 @ 12:39 pmSomeone should ask Obama the answer. After hearing his ruminations with Jay Leno about port towns that sit on the Gulf of Mexico, there’s no question that President 57 States would know the answer !
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 8/19/2013 @ 12:42 pm# 77
your comment is racist in a discussion of this sort. President 57 states has no need to know anything about history or geography. Not when he has extremely brilliant advisers such as Hillary and John Kerry.
Joe (debac0) — 8/19/2013 @ 1:00 pmMacedonia went seven centuries until conquered by the Romans, whose civilization almost lasted a millennium.
Dustin (2b54d2) — 8/19/2013 @ 1:26 pmThe lesson being that stability and hegemony are closely related. Not for every country, but certainly for the large, wealthy, diverse ones.
Dustin (2b54d2) — 8/19/2013 @ 1:28 pmComment by Dustin (2b54d2) — 8/19/2013 @ 1:26 pm
Romans, whose civilization almost lasted a millennium.
It lasted longer.
The Roman Empire, as a form of government, lasted almost exactly 1,500 years from Julius Caesar to
Constantine XI. Although it was still called the Roman Republic – Republica Romana – as late as the 600s and probably later still.
A lot of violence and coups in between, and the territory of the government, and its language changed and there was even a whole period of exile on thge north shore of the Bkack Sea.
The truth is, the shrunken Roman empire eventually became just Greece. A completely legally separate government from the first Greek government, that of Macedonia. And the third one since about 1820, also has no legal connection to the second.
Sammy Finkelman (375edc) — 8/19/2013 @ 1:42 pmThe consensus opposition answer is Great Britain. But, while I am happy to be corrected on this point if shown wrong, doesn’t Great Britain date back to merely 1801?
1. Great Britain is not a country, it’s an island.
2. The last time the UK’s government changed by violence was in 1688.
3. 1801 was merely the year on which Ireland joined the UK; most of Ireland then left the UK in 1922; a small part remains. If you count 1801 as the start of a new UK, with three constituent countries instead of two, then you’d have to count 1959 as the start of a new USA, with 50 states instead of 48.
In any case, as far as I know Iceland’s government has not changed through violence since 1262.
Milhouse (4f0657) — 8/19/2013 @ 1:44 pmNo, that change goes back to some time before the American revolution. Despite the US founders’ fulminating against the King, it was his elected government they were actually fighting. The king himself was already reigning rather than ruling; he (or his regent) may have been a more active participant in his government than the Queen is today, but ultimately all decisions were taken by the government, not by the monarch.
Milhouse (4f0657) — 8/19/2013 @ 1:50 pmNo, it didn’t. The Reform Act was merely the equivalent of the Voting Rights Act in the USA. It reformed how elections were conducted, not their result.
Milhouse (4f0657) — 8/19/2013 @ 1:54 pmWrong. 1931. 1982 is merely when the Canadian Parliament got the right to amend its own constitution.
It still does. Legally the UK could first revoke the Statute of Westminster Act of 1931, which would return Canada to colony status, and then it could revoke the British North America Act and dissolve Canada altogether. Of course if it tried to do so, the Canadians would probably not stand for it.
Milhouse (4f0657) — 8/19/2013 @ 1:57 pmNo, she didn’t. The rest of your comment stands, but this bit simply didn’t happen. If she had lost her law license, however, it would undoubtedly have been, as you say, BECAUSE THE WHITE MAN was trying to KEEP HER DOWN.
Milhouse (4f0657) — 8/19/2013 @ 1:59 pmComment by Milhouse (4f0657) — 8/19/2013 @ 1:50 pm
The king himself was already reigning rather than ruling; he (or his regent) may have been a more active participant in his government than the Queen is today, but ultimately all decisions were taken by the government, not by the monarch.
As I think Edmund Burke wrote, George III was buying members of parliament by financing their campaigns – I know he used different words. He controlled only because he got people into Parliament.
The list of British Prime Ministers usually begins in 1770, or with Robert Walpole in the 1740s. No earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Walpole
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 8/19/2013 @ 2:21 pmComment by Beldar (a5a1b4) — 8/19/2013 @ 6:56 am
the Poll Tax Riots brought down Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher (albeit only in favor of fellow Tory John Major, not Labor)….Not a day I’ll forget.
I never heard of this., I thought it wa sonly the prospect of losing the next election that caused the Conseravtives to suddenly depose Margaret Thatcher.
The poll tax – capitation tax instead of prpperty tax rates with provisions for people who were too poor to pay – was very much like the health insurance individual mandate – except that nobody is actually going to force people to pay for helath insurance or collect the penalty/tax, which is anyway set too low.
What will happen is a lot of people will not income tax refunds.
Then people will manage their affairs not to geta refund and owe the IRS money. and then maybe not pay that because they can’t.
And maybe be supposed to file estimated taxes.
Then Congress will do something.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 8/19/2013 @ 2:43 pmIt was 1974 that teh threat of force came closest to changing aBrityish government. Prime Minister Heath called a snap elction because of a coal miners strike.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 8/19/2013 @ 2:44 pmI’ll go with Sammy at Comment 81 about the Roman Empire. And the Republic before Sulla was nothing to sneeze at either.
nk (875f57) — 8/19/2013 @ 3:28 pmIt was, of course. If they’d been sure of winning the next election they’d have brazened out these riots just as they did the miners’ riots and countless others. The riots were just seen as a sign of her weakness, and enough Tories were persuaded to vote her out.
Of course the opposition to the poll tax was organised by the same radical Marxists who are behind all the riots over the decades. The principle that services which benefit everyone equally should be paid for by everyone equally was anathema to them.
BTW, does any municipality or other authority in the USA have poll taxes to pay for services that everyone enjoys equally? If not, why not? Everyone accepts that the supermarket charges the rich and the poor alike, and so does every other business. Even government-run public transport does so, if you ignore the discounts for the old and the young. So why should this not apply to other government services? Why would Americans not accept this?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 8/19/2013 @ 3:53 pmThey do have their own foreign policy. They maintain independent diplomatic relations with the US, among others. They’re also have their own seat at the UN.
http://monaco-usa.org/
The same treaty with France that permanently recognized Monaco’s sovereignty also stipulated that France is responsible for Monaco’s defense.
But that doesn’t mean they’re not permitted to have a military. It’s just that their population is too small. They have a civil defense corps.
Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/19/2013 @ 4:40 pmI was using metric millenia. 😉
Dustin (2b54d2) — 8/19/2013 @ 4:49 pmI don’t believe the Roman Republic/Empire is/are in the running since those are generally assigned to classical and late antiquity. Which would eliminate it from the category of modern history.
Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/19/2013 @ 5:14 pmJoe #78,
I denounce myself !
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 8/19/2013 @ 6:06 pmI was using metric history.
Dustin (2b54d2) — 8/19/2013 @ 7:51 pmUPDATE x2: D’oh! I said “Great Britain” when I meant the United Kingdom. Thanks to Milhouse for correcting me.
Patterico (b3fd60) — 8/19/2013 @ 10:29 pm94. Comment by Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/19/2013 @ 5:14 pm
It is not in the running because it is no longer funct. If I can use that as a word. But it might have the all-time record. Nothing limited this to modern history. Besides, it lasted past the beginning of printing.
Sammy Finkelman (e5fb44) — 8/19/2013 @ 11:49 pmEnough, already !
As an actual Brit, born and raised, having spent my first 21 years Scotland, I can point out that saying United Kingdom is effectively an abbreviation for “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” … and it can also be known as Great Britain …
As a Scot, there is the embarrassment that Scotland *inherited* England, Wales, and Ireland – in 1603 … and then James the Sith of Scotland became James the Sixth and First – James I of the United Kingdom etc … which said idiot (highly intelligent dilletante that he was) turned round and managed to get assimilated by the sassenach …
From 1603 until the Union of the Parliaments in 1707, Scotland had its own Parliament while the English Parliament made the laws for England, Wales, and Ireland … in 1707, the Scots Parliament voted to merge into the British Parliament, merging with the English Parliament subject to the condition that Scots Law would continue for Scotland, even as English Law would continue for the rest of the UK … when laws were passed from 1707 on, they were passed distinctly essentially twice, once for the rest of the UK and once for Scotland, which gradually brought the legal systems closer and closer together …
Certain laws remained distinct … one of the most significant being that in Scotland, a “No Trespassing” sign has no legal force … if your hat blows over a fence, you are fully entitled to go retrieve it as long as you do no damage nor commit any crime … mere presence does not construe an offence … in the rest of the UK, ignoring a “No Trespassing” sign means that you are committing a crime …
To get back to the topic of the post, from 1688 on, the English Parliament merging into the British Parliament gives non-violent continuity … and the Scots Parliament can plausibly claim continuity from 1603 on until the English Parliament merged with it … (grin)
The current Monarch – Queen Elizabeth II – retains what may be the most important Royal Prerogative … at any time, just once, should Her Majesty see fit, She can *prorogue” Parliament and there *will* be a General Election … and it cannot be stopped … it has not been done to the British Parliament – *yet* !
That prerogative was invoked by Her Majesty’s Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, who prorogued the Australian Parliament of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in November, 1975 – “”Because of the principle of responsible government, a Prime Minister who cannot obtain supply must either advise a general election or resign. If he refuses I have the authority, indeed the duty, under the Constitution to withdraw his commission. No other decision was open to me,” said Sir John.” – the prerogative to prorogue Parliament is the Monarch’s check and balance on an out-of-control Government … since the Australian electorate tossed out Whitlam’s Labour Party and instead returned Malcolm Fraser’s Liberal-Country Party as majority in both Lower House (by a landslide) and Senate, that prerogative was again reloaded with one more shot …
So – the Queen is not powerless – She keeps Her Prime Minister and Her Parliament just that little bit nervous and unsure … if they mess up enough, they *will* face a General Election …
(With apologies to Sammy for usurping his wall-o-text ™)
Alastor (2e7f9f) — 8/19/2013 @ 11:55 pmThe United Federation of Planets was founded in 2161 and lasted at least through the 29th century, depending on the outcome of the temporal cold war.
Dustin (303dca) — 8/20/2013 @ 12:29 amCheck this out.
http://www.thelanguagejournal.com/2012/12/top-10-dynasties-in-world-that-reigned.html
The “House of Dulo” had many “kings” (of various conglomerates of tribes like The Huns, The Bulgars and the Alans) but no country to rule on, so I’d give the title to the Empire of Japan.
Allow me to introduce the 125 members of the Honorable Imperial Japanese dynasty:
http://www.kunaicho.go.jp/e-about/genealogy/img/keizu-e.pdf
They have a documented genealogy lasting about 2700 (twothousandsevenhundred) years.
Areneus (efa266) — 8/20/2013 @ 1:30 am“Documented” according to whom? Most reputable scholars consider anything before about 500 AD to be complete hooey. Also, there is no way that the Imperial Japanese family either reigned or ruled for several hundred of the last 1000 years. From 800 AD to about 1200 AD, members of the Fujiwara family were the real power, often putting Emperors aged 2 to 8 on the throne, and then replacing them with another child the moment they had an heir. After that, until 1867, various military families held the reins of power. While it was true that the family had a certain amount of authority until 1600 or so, by the time of the Fujiwara shogunate (1600-1867), they were so inconsequential that three histories of Japan that I own don’t even bother to mention the names of the Emperors (and Empresses) of this time.
David, professional internet troll (691e3b) — 8/20/2013 @ 4:42 amI thought it was the Tokugawa shogunate — the Fujiwaras were the imperial family?
nk (875f57) — 8/20/2013 @ 5:23 amComment by Dustin (303dca) — 8/20/2013 @ 12:29 am
The United Federation of Planets was founded in 2161 and lasted at least through the 29th century, depending on the outcome of the temporal cold war.
First of all, that’s fiction. Secondly, they don’t acquire seniority until everything that existed before then is gone. If the government of England and Scotland is still around and continuous, they still are holding the the record in the 29th century, and places like Canada are also ahead of the United Federation of Planets.
One problem with Star Trek – you’ve got civilizations or settlements on planets going back hundreds of years, yet the whole thing starts just two centuries before Captain Kirk.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 8/20/2013 @ 8:33 am99. Alastor Certain laws remained distinct … one of the most significant being that in Scotland, a “No Trespassing” sign has no legal force
I always heard about the Not Proven jury verdict.
Scottish laws sound better than English laws – why weren’t they adopted, and why are they still not adopted elsewhere?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 8/20/2013 @ 8:34 amYou recall how Cochrane’s tachyon signature, was what alerted the Vulcans, otherwise we were mostly silent,
narciso (3fec35) — 8/20/2013 @ 8:41 amCANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW/SUMMER 2010: British and Canadian Experience with the Royal Prerogative A lot of basic history but I can’t find anything here about a one-time right of the monarch to dissolve Parliament. Originally, Parliament was needed by the king to levy taxes, and would be summoned as needed. Once there they could pass any law. Every session was separately elected at one time. There were periods kings tried to get along without a Parliament. Prorogue there seems to mean a recess at least at first.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 8/20/2013 @ 8:52 amThe Vulcans are supposed to exist beforehand, but otherwise these planets are all populated by humans, and how could they have a such a long history if it all began less than 200 years before.
Unless of course you want to go with the multiple origin theory which Isaac Asimov had as the standard false theory in his Foundation series. This was based on the idea of the most ridiculously wrong concepts being accepted as science everyone was supposed to accept.
In his universe, the truth of an origin from a single place – Earth – is only a minority opinion held by occasional assorted dissenting historians and archeologists widely separated in time.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 8/20/2013 @ 8:58 amRemember the Vulcans, even though they were nearby had not long since recovered from a nuclear exchange, which prompted their repression of emotion in part,
narciso (3fec35) — 8/20/2013 @ 9:02 amHow about the title of this post?
Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/20/2013 @ 9:06 amI was using metric reality. To be fair it’s also a fiction that the USA of today is the same country or society as the one from even 100 years ago.
Dustin (303dca) — 8/20/2013 @ 9:06 amThe Yamato were the imperial clan. There were five other original aristocratic clans (kuge) all vying for power at court in Kyoto.
During the Heian period (794-1156 A.D.) a new clan, the Soga, rose to challenge the five original clans. The Soga managed to maneuver into positions of power, taking charge of the offices where all the real reins of power were handled and insinuating themselves into through marriage into imperial lines of heredity.
During the ensuing infighting one of the original clans, the Nakatomi, wiped out the Soga. The Nakatomi nominally restored the emperor to power, and the emperor gave them the name Fujiwara as a token of gratitude.
Don’t ask me to explain the naming thing; I haven’t got a clue why a name that translates to “Wisteria Plain” is meaningful. But these renamings seem to be common in Japanese history seem to be common to reflect a change in status. Even now Sumo wrestlers will fight under one name, usually their family name, in the lower ranks but when they break out into the upper ranks will adopt a new fighting name or shikona.
The late Heian period is sometimes called the Fujiwara period (c. 866) because they did the same thing as the Soga; they held the offices of real power behind the throne.
The imperial and aristocratic clans were the titular landholders. But while the court nobles were squabbling in Kyoto they ignored their provincial holdings leaving the day-to-day affairs to non-aristocratic retainers. Their provincial agents realized they held the real power in their own hands, rice producing land. Possession being 9/10s of the law they rose against their aristocratic betters and essentially staged a coup, leading to the rise of the military clans (buke). Also known as the Samurai.
So after that it’s Shoguns all the way down.
Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/20/2013 @ 9:43 amIf anyone cares the clash between the Soga and the five original noble clans came to a head during the Heian period. The Soga actually appeared in history a few centuries earlier.
Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/20/2013 @ 9:51 amBecause England was the centre of power. It made no sense for James to keep his capital at Edinburgh and rule England from there; as soon as he inherited the English throne it was inevitable that he would move to London and rule Scotland from there.
Similarly, when William of Orange conquered the British Isles, he didn’t try ruling them from the Hague, he moved his capital to London, which inevitably meant that all the commercial houses of Amsterdam moved their head offices there as well, and thus London replaced Amsterdam as the world’s commercial capital. The conquest thus turned into England’s gain and the Netherlands’ loss.
Going back, when William the Bastard conquered England, again he didn’t try ruling it from Falaise, but moved to London.
Thus when Scotland and England united it would have made sense for Scotland to adopt English law, but the Scots didn’t like that idea, so there was this deal where it would keep its own laws under the Union.
Incidentally, in the 19th century there was an attempt to impose English law on Jersey, on the grounds that it made no sense for this tiny island under UK rule to have its own laws and be independent of those made by the UK parliament. When the Jèrriais objected, some genius asserted that England had the right to impose its laws on Jersey by right of conquest. To which they replied that since they are what’s left of the Duchy of Normandy (after the French took the rest of it), if you insisted on getting technical it was Jersey that conquered England, not the other way around, and England ought to adopt their laws! That was the end of that proposal.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 8/20/2013 @ 11:29 amKudos, Milhouse ! (grin)
Scotland had and has its share of silly laws, too – especially under the tumshies in Holyrood (the current Scottish Parliament) …
One can posit at least two reasons for sensible Scottish laws, both based upon upon something very similar …
One is that Scots tend to be canny …
And the other is that Scots, when presented silly laws, tended to say “Ye cannae be serious !” …
Uncanny, that !
Alastor (e7cb73) — 8/20/2013 @ 2:37 pmBy the way, following the same principle, that the centre of government inevitably follows to where the economic power is, Adam Smith predicted in the Wealth of Nations that if the American revolution (which had just begun) could be resolved peacefully and justly, and the colonies reintegrated into the UK, then eventually the UK would move its capital to America.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 8/20/2013 @ 3:01 pmThe comments on Japan are illuminating.
Though powerless, the Emperors continued to be there and its divinity was the reference on which the real power claimed do be legally founded, whatever it was.
So the “government” remained an Empire and that didn’t change, while in the meantime the power moved from one gang to another and the Japanese people counted basically zero.
My position on all this is that the ability of a government to last is not necessarily related to checks and balances: the checks and balances, in the end, are just a tool serving the scope of getting what Jefferson and Franklin and all those fellows with funny dresses proposed, that was (approximatively) to avoid a medieval-ish rule of aristocracy on dependent plebeians, of serfs and “Clientes” and creating a society of accountable and reliable people.
The ability of such a society to last depends on how those people behave.
Even if the government remains formally unchanged you will see that the accountable/reliable people can be simply buried by the numbers by the easy to please beggaroids that flourish when you “make it comfortable to live in poverty instead of making it easy to exit from it”.
Or maybe I’m just wrong.
Areneus (efa266) — 8/21/2013 @ 12:38 amI wouldn’t swear to the dates as to when everything I said happened, as different sources differ. Except for the Heian period being the heyday of the aristocratic clans.
But the nuts and bolts are the same. The Soga rose to contest for power over the throne with the five original noble families, the Nakatomi extinguished them, and then the Nakatomi or at least a branch of it became the Fujiwara.
The tale reminds me a great deal of what happened to Rome. If memory serves (and it often doesn’t which is why I’m backing off on certainty of the above dates) during the second or third century A.D. the emperor banned the senatorial class from legion command. To inhibit the advance of a senatorial rival. Essentially what happened was that real power shifted from Rome to the provinces. Provincials, particularly from the Balkans, commanded the army. And the armies were loyal to their commanders, not Rome.
By the same token in Japan the provincial agents of the royals in Kyoto gained power. They had clan ties to the people in the provinces, who raised the crops and provided the manpower to protect the crops. There wasn’t any difference between a farmer and a warrior until the 16th century.
The loyalty of the provincial army was personal, as in the later Roman empire, and vested in their commander. In Japan that meant to the local authority, not to the aristocrat who put that man in the position of authority. The provincials could have cared less about the distant Kyoto nobility. Exactly like the Roman armies. The parallels are striking.
Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/21/2013 @ 11:07 am}}} I was listening to another podcast by Russ Roberts in which the guest made a very interesting point. I’ll put his point in the form of a quiz question: what country’s government has survived without a regime change caused by violence longer than any other? Answer below the fold.
Don’t even need to look below the fold. It’s us, as far as major nations go. No other nation has had as stable a government as the USA, with no major changes for 235 years. The UK is probably next with only one significant change (pure monarchy to parliamentary figurehead monarchy in the early 1800s)
Not sure about some minor place like Lichtenstein or San Marino.
Wait. Wait!! VATICAN CITY!!! 😀
Smock Puppet, Gadfy, Racist-Sexist Thug, and Bon Vivant All In One Package (afdedb) — 8/21/2013 @ 3:49 pm}}} without a regime change caused by violence
This is the key difference. The UK would win with the above codicil, because I believe you can reasonably push it back before it was named “the UK” to when it was “Great Britain”. That’s more of a name change tied to a non-violent structural change than it is an actual “new country”.
A better way to phrase it is as I did — “without a significant change” — you can make arguments about what constitutes a significant change, but the UK’s conversion from pure to parliamentary figurehead clearly constitutes one.
The UK is well ahead of us in self-destruction, mind you. They’re now making mere possession of certain varieties of porn illegal (child porn is a special case as it has been shown to LEAD to criminal behavior… the varieties they’re outlawing have NOT been shown to do anything of the sort no matter how vile you consider that variety to be, and there have been plenty of efforts to “prove” that they do lead to criminal behavior.
Once you start making things illegal to possess simply because some large group doesn’t like them, you’re well along a slippery slope to zero free speech.
Smock Puppet, Gadfy, Racist-Sexist Thug, and Bon Vivant All In One Package (afdedb) — 8/21/2013 @ 3:57 pm}}} Johnl mentions San Marino. The CIA World Factbook says San Marino claims to be the world’s oldest Republic.
Not surprised, that’s why I also limited it to “significant” nations. It’s a lot easier to remain stable when your entire nation consists of 67 people and 3 dogs. 😀
Four dogs would make it very unstable….
Yes, “hyperbole for effect.” 😉
Again, you can argue what is a “significant” nation, I’d say if you have — whether you exercise it or not — the capacity to attack and possibly win against any of the 30 largest nations, you’re a “significant” nation.
By that standard, neither Italy nor Germany were significant nations until the late 1800s.
Smock Puppet, Gadfy, Racist-Sexist Thug, and Bon Vivant All In One Package (afdedb) — 8/21/2013 @ 4:05 pm}}} Comment by David, professional internet troll
‘Ooo pays your wages, sirrah?
😉
Smock Puppet, Gadfy, Racist-Sexist Thug, and Bon Vivant All In One Package (afdedb) — 8/21/2013 @ 4:17 pm}}} Scottish laws sound better than English laws – why weren’t they adopted, and why are they still not adopted elsewhere?
Kwitcherbichin. Some idiot (“Teh One”) might decide we need to adopt the Code Napoleon.
Smock Puppet, Gadfy, Racist-Sexist Thug, and Bon Vivant All In One Package (afdedb) — 8/21/2013 @ 4:19 pmThere has never been a country called “Great Britain”. Great Britain is an island. That’s all. It contains England, Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 8/21/2013 @ 4:23 pmWrong. Parliament has been sovereign in principle since 1688, and elected governments have been running things since at least some time before the American revolution.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 8/21/2013 @ 4:25 pm}}} the centre of government inevitably follows to where the economic power is
This is clearly faulty. The only thing that predominates in DC is bovine excreta. So there’s no reason for it to be the center of government.
That should be more like Silicon Valley… 😀
Smock Puppet, Gadfy, Racist-Sexist Thug, and Bon Vivant All In One Package (afdedb) — 8/21/2013 @ 4:26 pmNo, it hasn’t. Nobody has ever demonstrated a causal connection between porn (or comics or movies or dime novels or rap music or any of the other things regularly blamed) and subsequent criminal behavior.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 8/21/2013 @ 4:30 pmThere is some merit to the argument about Rome and Japan, but the key factor really is the proper transition of power between hegemonies. If a ruler takes power by killing their rivals, that’s NOT an orderly transition… because the same ruler will find themselves deposed — or their less competent heirs deposed — by the same methods.
The real strength of the USA lies in the fact that seizing the reins of power in the US will not be allowed by the people, even, I’d argue, now.
In most governments throughout history, what happened in 2000 would have resulted in a running battle between opposing forces. In the US, there was no such effort, because both sides knew that the American people would not accept that kind of succession. So a series of legal maneuvers took place, and went on until finally someone ran out of legal maneuvers. The guy in the chair when the music stopped, won.
BTW, before anyone tries to argue about how awful that election was, it had nothing on the Corrupt Bargain that put Rutherford B. Hayes in office.
Smock Puppet, Gadfy, Racist-Sexist Thug, and Bon Vivant All In One Package (afdedb) — 8/21/2013 @ 4:36 pmEngland’s nobles took power from King John by forcing him to sign the Magna Charta (Great Charter) relinquishing the King’s all powerful authority. Some power was shared with the noblemen. It was the precursor to their modern system of Parlimentary rule with limited Royal authority.
TexasMom2012 (cee89f) — 8/21/2013 @ 4:40 pmTexasMom2012, none of that is relevant. There were several violent changes of government after that, including one (1485) that they didn’t even pretend wasn’t by right of conquest. But 1688 was a conquest too, for all that they pretended after the fact that it was a revolution.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 8/21/2013 @ 5:20 pmAndorra, San Marino, & The Vatican do not count. As Carlin said, you’re not a real country unless you have a beer & an airline.
Vercingetorix (f4da09) — 8/26/2013 @ 9:36 pmIf Andorra did count, it wouldn’t qualify, since it was also annexed by Napoleon. San Marino, however, has been peacefully (more or less) independent since the Renaissance. It did, however, elect some fascists during the 20s and 30s under less than ideally democratic circumstances.
ChrisValentine (847c99) — 8/26/2013 @ 10:40 pmHolland beats everyone, I believe. Sweden is pretty good too, and possibly Denmark. None of those three countries have to my knowledge and belief ever suffered a violent change of government in the modern era.
The Germans attempted a violent change during the war in Holland, and failed. Other than that, it was the Dutch who rescued the English monarchy and protestantism in 1688, so their government is older than in England.
Sweden had a French king in the post-Napoleanic period but he was invited, if I recall correctly, to take office after the Swedes ran out of local candidates strong enough to deal with the Danes and the Russians.
Denmark, like Sweden, had local wars to contend with (see Swedens attempt to control Norway), and they, like everyone else have had to accommodate their German neighbors proclivity for world domination, but I can’t think of a violent overthrow that succeeded, except very temporarily.
Commerce and free thinking is a good prescription for longevity.
MTF (a9a9a7) — 8/27/2013 @ 4:09 amLots of talk of Japan. While the Japanese Imperial family can look back to 2,700 years of unbroken position in Japanese society, they have never ruled Japan. Their position has always been to give a sense of history and tradition to a state roiled by warlord governments for thousands of years, with near constant war during the feudal period.
One comment about Sweden. A commenter said (earlier in the thread)
“Sweden also has avoided this. However, Sweden went through an internal revolution in 1809-1810, when King Gustav IV Adolph was deposed and the constitution of 1772 was abolished.”
True enough, but as I recall from my hazy Swedish history, the internal revolution was no more violence directed at the government than it was personal animosity directed at an ineffectual King who, having lost Finland to the Russians, was soon out of office without violence. But the government endured, with merely a new King.
MTF (87923f) — 8/27/2013 @ 4:22 amAre we trying to say that stabiity is a way to measrue a good government? Most of the founders were Calvanists and that meant they did not have a real good opinion of men; hence the checks and balances. I think they would have been very concerned with a long term government that was “stable”. I suspect that the founders would have thought that turmoil and dissension was a sign of a strong country rather than a strong government. They never wanted a really strong government only one that would protect individual rights. Stop there.
Rich (95655f) — 8/27/2013 @ 6:41 am135. Comment by Rich (95655f) — 8/27/2013 @ 6:41 am
Are we trying to say that stabiity is a way to measrue a good government?
No, we’re not. We’re talking about both good and bad governments.
But if a government is decent, then maybe you look at that as a positive value.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 8/27/2013 @ 2:26 pm