AHC: Earliest Possible Universal-Suffrage Republic

How early could a democratic state with suffrage for all citizens be established? Go as early as you can--1500s? 1400s?
 
So basically, a republic that combines low to zero property requirements for voting with women's suffrage; that right?

Effectively. The dates I put above are speculative, and probably wishful thinking on my part. I got the idea from reading about Wat Tyler, so that colored my thinking a bit.
 
Assuming you dont include restricting "citizens" to aristocrats... maybe some early christians get very inspired by athenian democracy and the "love everyone" bits of the new testament and set up a commune in some out of the way spot that avoids the migrations?
 
In that case, Corsica seems like it'd be a good bet, considering how close it came OTL. (@Carp may have more)

What's the timeframe?

Assuming you dont include restricting "citizens" to aristocrats... maybe some early christians get very inspired by athenian democracy and the "love everyone" bits of the new testament and set up a commune in some out of the way spot that avoids the migrations?

By citizens I do mean everyone, yes. Your idea reminds me of a "Christian Republic of Naples" in... I believe it was A More Personal Union.

Now the question is where that "commune" should be. Eastern Rome probably wouldn't take kindly to it, and neither would Persia or the Arabs, if Islam comes about. Maybe they link up with the St. Thomas Christians in India? That could be fun.
 
In that case, Corsica seems like it'd be a good bet, considering how close it came OTL. (@Carp may have more)

This is probably the opposite of what you were expecting me to say, but I consider "Corsican Democracy" a bit overblown.

There is a long pseudo-republican tradition on the island, dating back to c. 1000 AD when the villages of the Terra di Comune in north-central Corsica established a system of podestas and caporali to unite against the southern Corsican lords. This does seem to have been an elective system, but we have little information on who did the electing. I presume that the villagers possessed a sort of primitive democracy, in which a small, economically-level community chooses its elders/big men/leaders. At most, the Terra di Comune system formalized these choices and then established the framework by which these village leaders, in turn, could elect multi-village leaders that would be able to rally the forces of the whole region. It sort of worked, but the communes nevertheless had to call the Margrave of Massa over from the continent to save them from the Count of Cinarca and his fellow aristocrats.

Presumably you meant the more modern incarnation of "Corsican Democracy" in Paoli's Republic, but the republic's democratic credentials are tenuous. The primary responsibility of the popular assembly, or "general diet," in Paoli's day was to get together once per year (in a place determined by Paoli), re-confirm Paoli as "the General," and then adjourn until next year. There's lots of faff in the 1755 constitution about courts, councilors, presidents, committees, and so on, but notably the General has absolute power over "affairs of war" in time of war, and given the fact that the Republic was in a perpetual state of war for the entirety of its existence there wasn't really much of a chance to test the capability, resilience, or independence (from the General) of these institutions. Famously, Rousseau wrote a constitution for Corsica at the invitation of Paoli and others in 1765, but there's no indication that Paoli or anyone else actually intended to follow his advice; they were essentially engaging in propaganda by associating their national liberation with the name of a well-known celebrity.

Paoli's government was, in effect, a charismatic "enlightened" dictatorship which possessed the trappings of democracy to legitimate his rule. That's not really a judgement on Paoli - the republic was always in a state of national emergency and it would be rather petty for me to criticize him for not being much of a democrat from the safety of my nice desk chair. Certainly the Corsicans did not begrudge him his power. I also concede that, compared to the political systems then in practice in most of Europe, Paoli's government (at least on paper) was at the vanguard of democratic governance. Since it only emerged a few years before the more thoroughly democratic United States, however, my guess is that it's not all that strong a contender for "earliest possible universal-suffrage republic."
 
Now the question is where that "commune" should be. Eastern Rome probably wouldn't take kindly to it, and neither would Persia or the Arabs, if Islam comes about. Maybe they link up with the St. Thomas Christians in India? That could be fun.

Somewhere in the Caucasus might work, maybe republican Armenians? Or perhaps they move up the Nile so they can get away from the romans?
 
How early could a democratic state with suffrage for all citizens be established? Go as early as you can--1500s? 1400s?

At the risk of being a pedant, how broad does the franchise have to be? After all, it's easy to have a "democratic" state with suffrage for all citizens so long as "citizens" is defined narrowly. One could very credibly say that ancient Athens had suffrage for all citizens, it's just that "citizen" did not include women, slaves, foreigners, and so on.

On the other hand, if you mean all people, then there's no government even today which meets the criteria. My country, the US, bars segments of the population from the franchise, most notably children, felons (depending on your state), and non-naturalized foreign-born residents.

IMO the hardest thing about this challenge is not achieving popular democracy but achieving suffrage for women, which presumably is what you're after since you didn't say anything about male suffrage. History in general, at least what I've read of it, is kinder to the democratic principle than to the notion of formal power being exercised by women.
 
At the risk of being a pedant, how broad does the franchise have to be? After all, it's easy to have a "democratic" state with suffrage for all citizens so long as "citizens" is defined narrowly. One could very credibly say that ancient Athens had suffrage for all citizens, it's just that "citizen" did not include women, slaves, foreigners, and so on.

On the other hand, if you mean all people, then there's no government even today which meets the criteria. My country, the US, bars segments of the population from the franchise, most notably children, felons (depending on your state), and non-naturalized foreign-born residents.

IMO the hardest thing about this challenge is not achieving popular democracy but achieving suffrage for women, which presumably is what you're after since you didn't say anything about male suffrage. History in general, at least what I've read of it, is kinder to the democratic principle than to the notion of formal power being exercised by women.

Assume that "everyone" means "all adult (18+ maybe?) individuals regardless of gender." And you are very right about women's suffrage; something tells me that John Ball, one of the inspirations for this AHC, probably didn't mean that women were equal when he talked about the time when Adam delved and Eve span.
 
As stated by others it is important whether suffrage is extended to all men of whatever class before or after extending it to women.
In most places the former is more likely.

Interestingly, in the U.K. there was some socialist opposition to the Suffragettes on the grounds that it wasn't extending suffrage to all classes just the property owning women.
 
I think it'd be possible in a Majorian Wins TL - or at least earlier than most. The circumstances of a surviving Majorian involve an overly obstructionist Senate, and a whole mess of 'Barbarians' that need integrating, and a need to prevent the throne being a target of force. The latter is a bit harder to achieve, but all three could be achieve by a reformer like Majorian via having more Senates - The Senate of Gaul, the Senate of Hispania, the Senate of Africa, the Senate of Italy - whilst involving the 'Barbarians' in the process - as long as they've joined and served the army.

Assuming that can hold together, you have a large republican (if headed by a Dictator-For-Life) system intact in ~500 AD, then it opens the doors for earlier pressures - perhaps a Theodora-esque figure that fights for womens rights to vote for their Emperor, and short of Emperors fighting a huge number of wars, there would be enough men unable to vote to want to demand that right as well.

I guess there is always the possibility of a proto-feminist Emperor emerging, or one with the trappings to match - who could simply expand the franchise - but I imagine that pressure through people into the Senates is more likely. Running for office? Probably still banned for a long time.
 
How early could a democratic state with suffrage for all citizens be established? Go as early as you can--1500s? 1400s?
Well, Athens had suffrage for all male citizens. Just have them redefine women as not-citizens, and there you have it.

OK, so citizens are only 10% of the population, but it meets your challenge.

Seriously. 'citizen' =/= 'resident'
 
Top