Democracy has many roots, some of which originated in the Middle Ages. Humans often gather into "assemblies" under the leadership of respected or feared members of an "organization" to pursue a common goal.
Assemblies do not necessarily have a formal presence. They are usually more or less spontaneous gatherings inspired by the crisis. Rallies are often difficult to distinguish from riots, in which a faction uses force against people perceived to be enemies.
The 1379 Ghent Revolt of Whitehood turned from a rally into an army and overthrew the city's existing regime.
The system is an example of a more orderly way of dealing with common issues through representation. Ghent is a large city with a common interest in fabrics and a larger group of professionals.
During the boom, formally or informally elected "best men" led each guild, and many political actions were carried out in interaction between them. If such a community was subject to the lords—just as Ghent was subject to the Count of Flanders—the guilds and councils would lead against any unpopular policies.
Modern representative systems** assume that all citizens have the same political rights. This means that they have the same right to choose their leaders. Elected representatives — elected through free elections — play an important role in legislative and executive functions.
The Middle Ages did it differently. The well-known maxim in Roman and canon law, "What touches all must be approved by all," expresses the expectation that the liege's demands on his subjects are reasonable. It sounds democratic, but the initiative is in the hands of the lords.
What's more, Ming Jun would listen to the words of the natural leaders among his subjects, and their identities were obvious. They may be elected by the group they represent, usually members of a council, guild, or ecclesiastical body. Or they may be summoned by a higher authority.
An example of an ad hoc body in English can be seen at the Maritime Policy Conference. It is not a governing body. It was a provisional body of 12 men elected or elected from each of the "five ports" (five important ports on the south coast of England), to which the king consulted on shipping and coinage.
Later, some of them were recalled for further counseling, but that was the end of the group – its work was done.
In the 12th and 13th centuries, the power and organization of the Church in Europe grew. Canon law—a separate legal system by which the clergy claim to regulate much of the apostolic life—is developing and systematizing. The development of ecclesiastical education led to conflicts with kings and major lords who were also expanding the scope of their laws.
In the UK, such conflicts are sometimes resolved in assemblies called rallies. When the need was felt, the two archbishops (Canterbury and York) and two minor clergy from each county met with the king to settle their differences, which usually included how much income the king hoped to receive from the clergy, who as a group were very wealthy. Consultation is necessary.
In the 13th century, this consultative process brought order to politics through the institutionalization of parliament. We can best follow this process in England.
From the king's point of view, the most important councils were the "Little Council" and the "Great Council". The Small Council (not so small, sometimes including a hundred members) was a near-permanent amorphous body that included earls, bishops, principal abbots, and officers who were usually required to be consulted or commanded in the presence of the king. At the same time, important matters were discussed in the Great Council.
In the XIII century, the king more often summoned representatives to talk to them. The largest of these talks (Latin "parliamentum", French "parlement") was a royal initiative, and the king's goal was usually to obtain consent for unusual taxes.
But this, of course, gave the people's deputies (at least laymen and free people) a chance to "talk back". People who feel that the ordinary courts have failed them can appeal to Parliament**, which is considered the Supreme Court.
Soon enough large groups will use ** to come up with regulations and permanent laws. Such a parliament could comment on royal policy, which involved war and peace and the judgment of the leader.
By the second half of the 13th century, discussions in parliament could be used to gain legitimacy. In the 1260s, Simon de Montfort, who led a rebellious baron against King Henry III, consolidated his movement by convening a council. After Edward I suppressed the baron's rebellion, he convened Parliament to carry out the necessary reforms and consolidate his power.
The Parliament of 1295, known to scholars as the "Model Parliament", shows the idea of the king (Edward I) and his advisers, who saw it as a useful group with which they could conduct serious business.
Below is a list of its different constituent groups, how they were selected and how they contribute to the structure of the future institution:
The clergy met separately from the council (the rest) after 1295 as an assembly;
2 archbishops attended because of the importance of their office;
18 bishops, because their positions are important;
Many representatives of the parish clergy were elected because of their religious role and collective wealth;
67 major abbots, also because of their religious role and wealth;
37 knights per 2 counties (77 total). Each county sheriff selects a representative (or a nominated for record);
110 citizens or citizens for every 2 boroughs (towns) (220 total). They are elected by local elections;
This seems to be a reasonable representation of what we call a "political state" in 1295. Note that no English country man who is not a knight belongs to it, and many of the "county knights" are not knights (although they are rich).
We know from our *** that even those who came to be known as members of the House of Commons often obeyed their superiors in Parliament. The influence of the seven counts far exceeds that of the 220 citizens from the borough.
But this did not mean that burghers and knights had no influence: it was generally accepted that if the king wanted more than traditional services and taxes from his subjects, he had to convince them that this was justified.
His ministers had to prove that the costly campaign of Edward I and Edward III was in the national interest. Discussion in parliament is increasingly at the heart of political life.
In the 1370s, the usual leaders were ** because of a crushing defeat in France. King Edward III was critically ill, his sons were killing each other, the treasury was empty, and the king's ministers were suspected of corruption. At this point, the "commoners" (at the instigation of more nobles) took the initiative to attack**.
The House of Commons put on the judicial cap and "* the two most unpopular ministers for their misconduct." When the ministers objected, the House of Commons chose one of their members, Peter de la Mare, to speak on behalf of them all.
There is no doubt that these commoners believed that they represented the vast majority of the population of England – after all, the royal practice of the last century made this interpretation almost universal (sic!). ）。The opponents of the king's ministers won the victory, and the defendant was "**charged" by the House of Commons), tried by the House of Lords.
In many countries with a "Westminster" style – and even in the United States – the post of Speaker of the House of Commons still exists.
The revolution was quickly reversed, but Parliament continued to play an important role in British politics. For example, in the most high-profile cases of rebellion against the king's regime and its policies in the 17th century, it was Parliament (and even the House of Commons) that led the way. Events such as the oath of office and execution of Charles I originated among ordinary people.
So is the development of the British Parliament the root of democracy? Accounts differ and opinions vary. Until the 19th century, the structure of the parliament remained largely unchanged. If we look at the members of the House of Commons, we see that even the most common members of parliament are extremely elitist.
Colleagues in the House of Lords have a great influence on local elections in the House of Commons. Many MPs are sons and heirs of members of the House of Lords and are likely to end up sitting in the House of Lords.
On the other hand, the presence of parliament in England and later in England was a triumph of a consultative political style that might have made it possible to propose, debate and implement reforms in the absence of revolution on the continent.
In the 14th century, many countries had parliaments comparable to those of the English Parliament, and by the 18th century, they had disappeared and efforts to create new ones were unsuccessful.
The history of medieval congresses is largely dominated by a functional paradigm that tends to emphasize the study of their role in the institutional development of states and principalities formed in the last centuries of the Middle Ages. The role is twofold:
First, the people submitted some grievances in the form of ** or pleas, asking the prince to respond generously.
Second, special financial resources were granted to the princes that could not reasonably be obtained without the consent of the subjects so assembled.
Parliaments in the Middle Ages flourished under different names (Parliament, State Council, Cortés, etc.), and the entire Latin ** religious world, from Poland to Portugal, from Scotland to Sicily.
They have their origins in the ancient feudal, highly ritualized assemblies, such as public coronations or solemn judicial decisions, and were usually held in ecclesiastical settings such as general councils, from where they migrated to secular politics from the thirteenth century.
It was emphasized that such an assembly could in no way be considered constitutional, nor could it be considered representative in the modern sense.
Democracy is a difficult and even controversial ideal. The history of the British Parliament is part of that difficult history.