Abstract
This paper would like to discuss the political development of English society during its upheaval and how it shaped the political ideas that emerged in the 17th century. The English state and society in the 17th century England, for instance, is one that can be described as revolutionary. During this time, many political ideas emerged in England that shaped not only England’s future as a nation, but also shaped the political ideologies of many countries around the world. This period in England’s history is one of the most significant primarily because of the many enlightenment ideas that revolutionized the political, social and economic ideologies of England, which eventually spilled out into the rest of the world. This paper also outlines the political theories that emerged out of the revolutionary experience of England. The paper also discusses how the political ideologies that emerged in the 17th century strengthened England’s society and reflected the origins of the country’s current form of government.
1. Discuss the ways in which developments in English society and the English state contributed to shaping political thought in the early 17th century. In what ways were the conflicts that informed English political theory grounded in specifically English history? What issues in political theory particularly reflect these origins?
England in the 17th century was characterized by civil unrests and political upheavals. But despite the chaotic environment of England during this time, most historians refer to this period in English history as being the most decisive as “modern English society and a modern state began to take shape, and England’s position in the world was transformed” (Hill, 1961, p.1). The start of the English revolution is marked by the weakening hold of absolute monarchy in England. The gradual decline of the rule of kings was, in fact, felt many years ago when English kings gradually shared power with their subjects. This sharing of power can be traced to the granting of the English rights; also known as the Magna Carta, during the reign of King John in the 13th century. Since then, British monarchs have tolerated and even promoted the participation of the aristocrats and wealthy merchants in their ruling. Such decline of power, however, was further emphasized with the rule of the Tudors who has been observed to compromise their absolute monarchy by sharing their power with the parliament. The British Monarch, Queen Elizabeth, for instance, consulted the parliament; a group of counselors composed of the House of Lords that represents the aristocrats and the House of Commons that represents the merchants, in matters of the state. It was also during the reign of the Tudors when the British constitution evolved into a monarchy, which is less absolute in power. The Tudors did not only share their powers among the people, they also became more tolerant and even supported the religious upheaval of England from Catholicism to Protestantism. It was during their reign when Protestantism gained a stronghold in England that later evolved into a quasi-political party known as the Puritans.
Their Tudor successors, however, are not as compromising. James I and his successor, Charles I, for instance, do not believe in sharing their power with parliament, which eventually triggered a constitutional conflict. These Stuart Kings emphasized that their authority came directly from God and tried to establish an absolute monarchy by dissolving the parliament. Particularly, the Stuarts would like to restore England to Catholicism and began to actively persecute England’s Protestants. A power struggle ensued between Charles I and the parliament and Charles were forced to dissolve the latter. It should be noted that historically, English kings do not keep a large standing army unless in times of war. Even so, the king’s army is supplied by the nobles and so the loyalty of the army is more inclined towards the nobles who serve as their benefactor. Sensing the growing unrest, Charles I knows that he could not prevail without a standing army loyal to him. For the same reason, he tried to create his own standing army in Ireland. A rebellion, however, erupted in Scotland and in order to muster the British militia, Charles was forced to call another parliament to help him suppress the Irish rebellion. The new Parliament, however, was still indifferent towards Charles and demanded that he dismantle the army that he has created in Ireland. Furthermore, the new Parliament strengthened its clout by decreeing that only the Parliament can muster the nation’s militia and that no militia units can be gathered unless it is authorized by the Parliament. But then the king issued a contradictory decree that sparked a revolution. Led by Cromwell the parliament tried to disarm the King and his army and eventually prevailed. Charles I and his followers were caught, charged with treason and executed. For the first time in English history, a commoner became a ruler of England. Cromwell’s commonwealth government, however, was short-lived as the monarchy was again restored after his death (Hill, 1961, p.118).
Cromwell’s death was abrupt while his son, Richard, failed to impress the military leaders that supported his father. Charles II was called by the Parliament to inherit his father’s throne and fill the gap that Cromwell left. Charles II, once again tried to restore Catholicism in England, moderately though, until his death in 1686. His brother James II succeeded the throne, yet he failed to capture the support of the English people. James II was a devote Catholic. When he ascended the throne, he tried to saturate the government with his fellow Catholics and alienated England’s Protestant majority. He also vetoes old laws and enacted new ones in order to give Catholics the freedom to worship, which is contrary to English laws. James II disregarded England’s Protestant orientation and was even planning to make England a more secular country to the dismay of many Protestants. James II may have been tolerated with the hope that he would later on be succeeded by his daughter, Mary, who is also a Protestant. However, when a son was born to James II, Mary and her husband William of Orange, as supported by protestant aristocrats, gathered a large army and invaded England. As Mary and William’s army marched into England, James’ army deserted him and he was forced to flee to France.
The Glorious Revolution ended England’s absolute monarchy, but unlike the civil war that brought Cromwell to power, the Glorious Revolution was non-violent. It was also during this time when the Bill of Rights was declared and made into law. Although William and Mary were given executive powers, it was the Parliament that took control of England’s government after the revolution. William’s kingship, for instance, was questionable, yet the Parliament has no choice, but to invite him to take charge of England’s government. In fact, even Mary was hesitant to recognize William as England’s rightful king since he was not a direct heir of James. To legitimize William’s kingship, Parliament declared that James abdicated the throne and consequently offered William England’s crown. William, however, only enjoyed limited power. As king, he can still function as the head of state, but his powers are severely limited. Financially, William is dependent on Parliament who refuses to grant him sufficient revenues. William was, therefore, forced to call on Parliament regularly in order to discuss the budget, which the Parliament exploited by forcing several conditions. Gradually, the monarch’s power diminished as Britain transitions into a Parliamentary democracy.
Although the 17th century was rigged with major political upheavals, it was during this tumultuous period in England’s history when the central concepts of modern governance emerged. In fact, many modern political ideas that are being practiced in many countries around the world today have its origins during the English enlightenment. One significant contribution of England in terms of politics during this time is its revival of democracy; a political ideology which has lain dormant for many years since the fall of Greece from the Roman Empire. Although democracy took many years to materialize in England as compared to other European countries and America, the modern ideas regarding how the people can govern themselves originated from English thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Hobbes is noted for his role in the political upheaval of England during the 17th century. In his seminal work, Leviathan, Hobbes criticized the unrestrained behavior of the English parliament and the lack of central authority. Hobbes believes that when left on their own, most people would act selfishly to their own destruction (Hobbes, 1651, p.107). For the same reason, Hobbes advocates for a government that is governed by a ruler or a central figure of authority. According to Hobbes, only a ruler can be genuinely impartial. For the same reason, a ruler can overcome his self-interest and can be expected to rule with justice. Hobbes, however, rejected the royalist argument regarding the divine right of kings. For Hobbes, the decision of the people to be ruled was a conscious act coming from the people who voluntarily subjected themselves to authority for the sake of security and social order. Hobbes believes that the rise of a ruler is a natural act. Accordingly, humans have voluntarily given up their freedom in order to be governed because they fear the unrestrained power of several individuals who are driven by self interest.
Just like Hobbes, the English philosopher, John Locke also believes that establishing a central government is a natural and rational choice because people want order rather than the chaos brought by anarchy. Locke, however, is more positive on his outlook towards the nature of man. While Hobbes argues that humans by nature are selfish, Locke believes that humans are inherently good and by nature opts to respect the rights of their fellow men such as the right to life, property and liberty. Locke shares Hobbes ideas regarding how the people consciously consented to be governed by a central authority. However, Locke emphasized that the governing authority exists by virtue of its contract with the people. For Locke, this contract is breached when the governing authority fails to protect the individual rights of the people. When this happens, Locke believes that the people have the right to replace their ruler with someone who can better protect their rights. The government, according to Locke, is accountable towards the people. This perspective towards governance formed the framework of modern democracy, which was later adopted by many states and republic. In a sense, the United States’ democratic ideals were heavily influenced by Hobbes and Locke’s ideas. The description of modern democracy that describes a government of the people, for the people and by the people, for instance, has its roots in the English political ideologies of the 17th century.
The origins of England’s conflict during the 17th century can also be considered as a result of the development of its laws, which gradually changed or progressed over many years of English civilization. Absolute monarchy may have outlived its tenure and as English society progresses, most people become disillusioned by its ideologies. The divine right of kings, for instance, was an age old doctrine that has no sound logical and political basis. Before the reformation, the doctrine that the right of kings to rule directly emanated from God dominated the political thought of most absolute monarchies in Europe. The divine rights of kings, however, were seriously challenged in the 17th century by notable Englishmen such as John Milton and James Harrington. Gradually, many people in England became disillusioned by the divine rights doctrine. In fact, even Hobbes, who was a supporter of absolute monarchy, built his arguments based on political principles and logical reasoning. Without a strong theoretical framework, the doctrine about the divine rights of kings is inevitably doomed.
Furthermore, the English revolution was clearly fueled by religious bigotry, which is a relic of the European’s mindset during the Middle Ages (Hill, 1961, p.106). The reformation in the 16th century, for instance, promoted religious intolerance in England when the nation passed several laws that restricts other religions in British territories except for Anglican Protestantism. Laws such as the Corporation Act of 1661, the Conventicle Act of 1664, and the Test Act of 1673, for instance, requires citizens to convert to the Anglican religion before they can hold public office and makes it unlawful for the people to practice another religion except for the Anglican religion. There were attempts to transition England into a more secular society, however, these attempts were met with hostilities. James II, for instance, tried to strike down England’s religious intolerance through his Declaration of Indulgence. James’s declaration would like to accomplish three major objectives. First, James would like to suspend all acts that deal with religion. Second, James’ declaration would like to promote greater freedom by giving the people the freedom to choose their own religion. Third, the declaration of indulgence aims to open England’s public positions to all people regardless of their religious affiliation. Although these objectives are ideal, with James II being a Catholic, the declaration of indulgence was construed as a political maneuvering technique in order to let the king’s Catholic allies to hold key positions in the government.
Although the revolution in England has limited bloodshed, the Glorious Revolution was far from being peaceful in Ireland and Scottland. James, for instance, is still recognized as the ruler of Scottland when William ascended the throne. Many of James’ supporters known as the Jacobites resisted violently. England and Scottland eventually united to become the Kingdom of Great Britain when Anne succeeded William as Britain’s monarch. Absolute monarchy in England, can be considered to have officially ended after the Glorious Revolution. The new political arrangement of England may have served the country well since at the early 18th century, England emerged as a formidable world power. The revolution that ensued in England was as much religious as it is political. And while political ideologies emerged victorious over the divine rule of kings doctrine, England’s religious intolerance was shaken by the revolution. In a way, the revolution taught the British about moderation and religious tolerance. Another significant contribution of the English revolution in the 17th century was the enactment of the English Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights can be considered as the very proof of parliament’s victory over absolute monarchy. It is also notable how England’s revolution revived the democratic ideals. In a way, the modern democracy practiced by many countries have their origins in the democratic concepts that emerged out of England’s revolutionary experience. Despite the turbulent and chaotic political environment of England in the 17th century, the country benefited from it by emerging as even more ideologically stable state both politically and socially.
References
Hill, C. (1961). The Century of Revolution 1603-1714. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. The University of Oregon.
