Origins of parliament

Parliament is the central institution of the representative government. However, most people don’t know its origins. That’s what we’re going to see now.

Today, I want to speak to you about the origins of the parliamentary system. Not many people know when and how was the birth of the parliament. So, that’s what I’m going to do by discussing the conditions that made possible its formation.

Although I want to focus on its origins, I think we will be able to compare its beginning with its current situation. That will be helpful to discuss some aspects of its evolution, as well as specific tipping points that involved a fundamental shift in its political role. In this way, we’ll appreciate the importance of parliament in the representative government, but also how it changed the political stage.

Before getting started, I think it’s important some clarifications. The general understanding of this institution includes such factors as feudal traditions of counsel and law, the emergence of urban class, the revival of Roman law, and the financial needs of expanding governments. There is nothing wrong with this interpretation, but it has neglected the role of militarism in the formation of parliamentary institutions. And as I see it, this is essential to understand its initial stage, as well as its following development.

The reason behind this gap is that representative institutions are considered incompatible with militarist rule. This point of view responds to recent changes in the dominant political culture of the West, and it explains why the public opinion associates the parliament with a form of civil government. However, this misperception overlooks another fundamental historical fact, and that is the central role of warfare during the first stages in the formation of the parliamentary system. We shouldn’t disregard the importance of this factor insofar as western societies remained organized primarily for war.

So, the question here is to discuss the connection between war and the formation of the parliament.

The origins of the parliament go back until the Middle Ages. At that time, kings weren’t as much powerful as they became centuries later. They had to share power with feudal lords who, in theory, were their assistants.

They were in charge of the government of specific areas of the kingdom that were far beyond the reach of the crown. However, these lords had much autonomy because they had their private armies, and communications were slow.

Let me give you an example. In England, those who ruled were still mainly those who fought. And those who were ruled, moreover, were yet thought of in military terms. For this reason, in the Middle Ages, and also during modern times, militarism was the predominant mindset in the ruling elite. Therefore, the people were considered an army by the ruler, or the pool from which an army could be mustered.

In the Middle Ages, there was no unitary organization to rule the kingdom. For this reason, the crown’s assistants were so important. They had certain obligations before the king, such as giving advice and supporting him in military and judicial matters.

So, the earliest secular assemblies were military institutions. These assemblies were at once an army, a council, and a legal tribunal. Members of these institutions were considered the most suitable for advice because of their understanding of public affairs. Thus, they gave counsel on political and military issues, in addition to this, they elected monarchs, approved legislation, and followed their leaders. Aside from all of this, what it’s of paramount importance here is the fact that chroniclers invariably speak of armies as assemblies.

Hence, representative institutions have a military origin in the Middle Ages, and their function was to aid the king. In addition to this, they adopted in early times a representative character.

Military aristocracies derived privileges from prowess and were considered natural representatives. Actually, the origin of the representative principle comes from this political organization in which the nobility, as a necessary assistant of the ruler, took part in government tasks.

Obviously, the representative principle had a different character in the Middle Ages, and it differed from the general understanding of our current days, and even of the Early Modern Age. But there was the germ of representative government and the parliamentary system. 

For instance, the oldest representative institution, the house of commons, has its origins in the Middle Ages after the Norman invasion of England by William the Conqueror in 1066.

This king received the aid of different warlords. When the conquest of England finished, they constituted this representative body on which the king depended. From then on, they were the new English aristocracy and assisted the king when it was necessary. They did so with armies, advice, and funds.

Among the different functions developed by these medieval representative institutions, the most important was advice, because, in the long run, it turned out to have a lasting significance in the development of parliamentary institutions. Counsel was present in military and political issues, and in the very beginning, it was an obligation. With the pass of time, the nature of this institution evolved, and what had been an obligation became a right.

The political evolution of these medieval representative institutions was different in each country. In continental Europe prevailed absolute monarchies as a consequence of the dominant role of kings. That curtailed the importance of these institutions. However, everything was different in England, where the parliament consolidated its position in the constitutional system. That made possible the formation of a representative government as such.

The English case is paradigmatic. That is because, during the reign of John Lackland, in the thirteenth century, the aristocracy forced the king to accept the Magna Carta, which contains several restrictions of the king’s authority.

Despite the king’s refusal, a coalition of barons made war against him and asserted their rights. That was a tipping point in the subsequent development of the parliamentary system. From then on, the role of the parliament was established, and the powers of the king were limited.

It was in England where the representative government emerged. However, it took centuries, as well as conflicts and bloodshed, to become the current political system. In any case, the Magna Carta is a benchmark in this long process, and England a remarkable early example of constitutional government.

Despite the lesser importance of representative institutions in continental Europe, when a ruler needed to raise funds to wage war, they had to summon the most powerful and influential members of the community. This situation was very usual, and it caused bargaining relations between the crown and nobility, as well as urban oligarchies. The consequence of this process was the confirmation of their privileges. In the meantime, these magnates increased their influence on the government. In general, it resulted in the limitation of the king’s authority.

France provides us a clear image of the former explanation. Before the revolution, despite the absolute monarchy, the king had to coexist with regional parliaments, other local institutions, a bulky privileged class, and the Estates-General.

To levy taxes, the king had to haggle with these representative institutions, and they contributed to limit his powers.

The evolution of medieval institutions towards the representative government was evident in England during the seventeenth century. So, any discussion of the parliament as a political institution has to deal with this circumstance.

Now, I want to remark one more turning point in its history.

The seventeenth century was critical for England. The extinction of the Tudor house caused the arrival of Stuart kings to the English throne. Conflict arose when they tried to rule as absolute kings, in imitation of continental Europe sovereigns. They found the fiery opposition of the parliament, and most of the aristocracy, especially the gentry. The situation was, in brief, a constitutional quarrel between the parliament and the crown. Each of them sought to wield political supremacy, and this confrontation led to civil war during the reign of Charles I.

It would take too much time to explain the whole history of these events and the more relevant details. For now, I want to outline the most critical changes in advancing the representative government.

When Charles I tried to rule without the parliament and raise funds with new taxes without the consent of the chamber, he found considerable opposition. That was a significant change insofar as the parliament vindicated its role as the central institution for specific matters, such as taxes.

At the same time, there was great concern over the formation of a 22,000 soldiers army. That situation stirred up fear about the king’s intentions of establishing an absolute monarchy. This military could be used by Charles I to subdue the parliament and rule alone.

During the fight between the crown and the parliament, the latter developed its doctrine about the consent to levy taxes. From then on, it was consistently vindicated the parliamentary approval of governmental actions. In fact, it became the main feature of the representative government.

The republican experience was the school for the emerging modern parliamentary system. However, the next tipping point was the Glorious Revolution in 1688. That event consolidated the centrality of the parliament in the constitutional government. It also contributed decisively to the creation of a limited government constrained by the parliament and the Bill of Rights.

These changes were fundamental because they shaped the constitutional system, but also defined the leading role of the parliament as a central institution. In this way, the parliament achieved its political supremacy against the crown, and it became the sovereign body of the kingdom. Since then, this institution became the source of legitimacy because it represents the people, and therefore every government needs its consent to rule the country.

Nevertheless, the people were a minority of wealthy individuals who had political rights to elect and be elected. In the UK, the universal suffrage arrived at the end of the Great War in 1918.

You may ask yourself what happened in the rest of the West? It was in the nineteenth century when other European countries adopted the representative government. But most of them didn’t have a liberal political culture as in England, and there were many troubles to develop this political system. Actually, the French revolution was an attempt to imitate the English experience of 1688. The US, however, followed a different trajectory similar in many aspects to the English political tradition.

It’s essential to remark that the parliament has been historically a powerful instrument to create consent, and by doing so, to facilitate the cooperation between government and society. The election of representatives endows permanent power structures with legitimacy and, at the same time, provides the ruling system with the necessary stability to existing in the long run. 

At the outset of the representative government, the parliament was a powerful institution. Nevertheless, the pass of time has changed its importance in factual terms. For this reason, today, the primary function of the parliament is to create consent in society to facilitate cooperation with the government. The over-expanded executive branch of the government explains that situation, besides the growing importance of security issues. All of this has altered the political system drastically with a redistribution of power, despite the constitutional provisions.

Therefore, the decision-making process doesn’t rest on the parliament, but on those executive institutions that lead the legislative initiative. Then, the parliament has become, in most cases, a passive actor whose main function is to ratify the legislative proposals of the executive. And by doing so, it provides the system and the executive action with the necessary legitimacy.

In some way, this political phenomenon is paradoxical, because the introduction of the universal suffrage didn’t contribute to strengthening this institution, but to weaken it. Actually, it lost power, and its role has been confined to provide the government with more legitimacy thanks to the mass politics inaugurated by the universal suffrage. That makes us think of the importance of consent as the cornerstone of the representative government and how it works. But that’s something I’ll address in the next occasion.

Question of the day

Question of the day! What do you think about the current role of parliaments? Post your opinion in the comments section below, and I’ll check it out.

Bibliography used:

Bisson, Thomas N., “The Military Origins of Medieval Representation” in The American Historical Review 71 (4), 1966, pp. 1199-1218

Popofsky, Linda, “The Crisis over Tonnage and Poundage in Parliament in 1629” in Past and Present 126, 1990, pp. 44-75

Childs, John, Warfare in the Seventeenth Century

Kennedy, William, English Taxation 1640-1799

Gregg, Pauline, King Charles I

Glennon, Michael, National Security and Double Government

Gilbert, Felix (ed.), The Historical Essays of Otto Hintze

Keir, David L., The Constitutional History of Modern Britain Since 1485

Strayer, Joseph, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State

Strayer, Joseph, Medieval Statecraft and the Perspectives of History

Poggi, Gianfranco, The Development of the Modern State

Pincus, Steve, 1688: The First Modern Revolution

Mann, Michael, The Sources of Social Power Vol. I

The Sources of Social Power Vol. II

Disclosure: Some of these links are affiliate links where I’ll earn a small commission if you make a purchase at no additional cost to you. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.