|
And you MUST different between countries that had Kings imposed on them and the effect of Universal Military Service had on the power structure within most countries.
In the Middle East you still have Emirs, Kings, Shahs etc, but if you look at these Countries "Dynasties" you will find out they go back no more than 2-3 generations. For example the Shah of Iran inherited Iran from his Father (When the British wanted the old Shah out). But how did the First Shah get power? While he took it in a Military Coup and declared himself "Shah". His son, had become almost a figurehead by 1954 when the son (Lead by the CIA this time) made himself dictator while retaining the name "Shah".
If you look to Latin America a similar situation occurred but instead of calling themselves "King" or "Emperor" their called themselves "President". Example of this was Papa and Baby Doc of Haiti and Somoza in Nicaragua (and Kim the present Ruler of Korea who inherited it from his Father). These rulers had the full power of a King but found the name "President" a better name to use.
If you look at the old Royal Families of Europe, they are NOT that much different than the above Latin American Dictators and Arab Emirs. Not a one of them predates the 9th Century in the male line (Some do go before that date by only through a woman). Many trace themselves to Peasants from the Middle Ages who joined the Army and moved up in Command like the Shah, and Somoza. With the Renaissance efforts were made to "fix" the nobility of Europe and thus restrict the groups that supported the King. With this reduction of power of the Peasants the Nobility ruled.
With the Raise of the Middle Class you had a conflict between the old Nobility and the Middle Class. This ended up in the English Civil War of 1640-1648 and the French Revolution of 1789-1801. In many ways these were fights between the Middle Class and the Nobility. After the Middle Class won, the Revolution was continued by the Working Class. This tended to scare the Middle Class who looked for Stability in the form of a strong leader and than the return of the King and Nobility (In England you had Cromwell and the Commonwealth than the Restoration, in France you had Napoleon and than the Restoration of the French Monarchy).
Now France had a subsequent Revolution in 1848 which lead to Emperor Napoleon III who was replaced in 1871 (and in 1871 France wanted to restore the King but the Heir to the Bourbon Throne would NOT be a king under the Tricolor thus a Republic was selected only as a temporary solution but then the Heir lived longer than expected so by the time he died France had come to accept the Third Republic).
The rest of Europe followed the same process, A King who was a real power supported by his Nobility. A Revolution (often tied in with the French Revolution) that gave power to the Middle Class, this lead to a military Tyrant as the Revolution threaten to go to far (and when the Tyrant has stabilized the Country by Force, he is replaced by a Restored King as the Middle Class want to maintain they own power through use of the Law).
The US avoided this barely for Washington did not want to be a Cromwell (Through they were people who wanted him to be one, including many of the officers of the US Army). We opt for a Republic but even the US had earmarks of Monarchy (Just look at the Presidency, it is a Constitutional Monarchy in power formation).
Now in the 1800 in a effort to keep revolutions down, Monarchy was the preferred form of Government, often imposed on Newly Independent European Countries by the Powers of Europe. In many ways these new Monarchs of the 1800s were in reality Military dictators imposed on these Countries. They often had no power base within the Country EXCEPT in context with the major powers. Now most of these new Monarchs actually tired to live a Kings of their new Countries and often highly respected within the Country, but the real power was in the political structure of the Country who directed how these monarchs were to rule.
We tend to forget how REVOLUTIONARY Republics were viewed in the Mid-1800s. They were rare BEFORE the French Revolution and almost all die out during the Revolution (For Example the Dutch Republic became the Dutch Monarchy during or right after the Wars of the French Revolution as did Venice and the few other republics in Europe. This continued till WWI (and even France the First choice had been a King not a Republic in 1871).
Come WWI you had Revolution in the air as the Communists and their Allies threaten to overthrow the above Middle Class Constitutional Monarchs. Either to Appease these movements OR to address the Concerns of these Movements, Republics were declared for those New Countries formed after WWI (Poland, Turkey, Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the other Countries formed out of the old Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary Empire).
Russia Declared itself a Republic of self ruling "Soviets" (Thus the Name for the old USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Those countries that had Kings before WWI kept they king EXCEPT if they were on the losing side of WWI OR Russia. Even here the Western Powers would have preferred a King but realized to impose a King on the Defeated Countries would have turned enough people against the West and right into the Communist Party. This fear of Communism killed the official policy of imposing Kings on New Countries, but strong men were still imposed, called Presidents instead of King but having all the power of the Dictator.
For example the Wiemar Republic had a way for the President of the German Republic to change and impose new laws WITHOUT the consent of the German Diet. This was the power Hitler wanted. By 1930 Hitler had the power to STOP any legislature overturning such Presidential laws once he had the ear of President Hindenburg his power was absolute (In fact the Enabling act giving absolute power to Hitler was NOT to give that power to Hitler but to the Chancellor and the President of Germany. The German people were willing to give absolute power to Hindenburg but not Hitler. Hitler knew this so provided that the power the the Presidents and waited for Hindenburg to die. Once Hindenburg died in 1934 Hitler grabbed the position of President and merged it with his position of CHancellor to the new position of Supreme German leader (i.e. "Fuhrer"). Technically Nazi Germany was a Republic but with a life long "Leader" in charge.
After WWII and the Cold War, the US could NOT appear to be imposing Dictators on various countries, thus the US and the USSR called their puppet States "Republics". These were lead by Presidents who more often than not were succeeded by their Sons. Kings in all but names.
My point in this letter is to show the switch from the name King (and Kingdom) to President (and republic) is more of Style than in reality. In many countries their hierarchy ruler is now called a President instead of "King" but the power remains the same. In Europe and other Countries were you had self-rule come into play, the Kings when Restored after the Napoleonic Wars tended to submit to the growing demand for Democracy and thus became figureheads (This is often tied in with those same countries adopting universal Military Service do to the tensions between the Napoleonic Wars and WWI, with Universal Military Service the people and the Army became one and the same and the demands of the People for a say in how they are governed could not longer be ignored, thus expansion of Parliamentary forms of Government and Universal Suffrage while retaining the King as a symbol of unity).
Yes, the switch from Monarchs to Republics is a complex change, but reflects style AND internal power structures more than raise of education and communications (Through these are also tied in with Universal Military Service in most European Countries).
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
