Commonwealth survives: earlier democracy?

One of the things we have seen in the Arab Spring is that populations seem to be more ready to rise up against military and secular leaders than they seem to against monarchs, presumably because monarchs have more traditional legitimacy.

What does this mean for the Commonwealth of England, Ireland and Scotland had it survived? Would it have been more likely to give way to a broader franchise in time?

I'm obviously talking in centuries here, rather than the immediate years after Cromwell's death.
 
I'm not sure I buy this; didn't the Commonwealth come around because people killed the king?
I think his reference to the Arab Spring is that he believes that a military dictator, like Cromwell or a successor, would be more likely to be overthrown than a monarch because the monarch has more tradition.

This seems likely, but I imagine that any toppling of the Commonwealth would result in some sort of restoration of the monarchy, unless the Commonwealth lasts more than a century.
 
I'm also trying to work out what he means by 'earlier democracy'. Cromwell's regime was actually less democratic than what came before or afterwards, and I've got a hard time seeing the stuff around the Great Reform Act occuring earlier under military rule.
 
I think his reference to the Arab Spring is that he believes that a military dictator, like Cromwell or a successor, would be more likely to be overthrown than a monarch because the monarch has more tradition.

That's exactly what I meant.

This seems likely, but I imagine that any toppling of the Commonwealth would result in some sort of restoration of the monarchy, unless the Commonwealth lasts more than a century.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure "toppling" is needed, just greater political discontent forcing earlier reform in a more democratic direction.

I'm also trying to work out what he means by 'earlier democracy'. Cromwell's regime was actually less democratic than what came before or afterwards, and I've got a hard time seeing the stuff around the Great Reform Act occuring earlier under military rule.

I imagine Cromwell's successor would have to share power more than Cromwell himself did. If Lord Protectors have to be chosen by consensus, due to the lack of clear succession, those bidding for the position would also likely promise to be less dictatorial.
 
I imagine Cromwell's successor would have to share power more than Cromwell himself did. If Lord Protectors have to be chosen by consensus, due to the lack of clear succession, those bidding for the position would also likely promise to be less dictatorial.

Meh, at best you're going to end up with an Oligarchy from a small group relying on the support of the military, more likely one of his sucessors declares himself king as a way of gaining more support by having a position with, ironically, more clearly defined powers and known reliances on parliament.
 
Top