Democratic Absolutism?

Thande

Donor
The 17th and 18th centuries saw a rise in the idea of Absolutism in some European countries, notably France, Spain and Denmark. Many people seem to think that absolute monarchy is just the default state of a country before liberal democracy, but in fact Absolutism was a deliberate ideological shift. Prior to this, most of these countries had quite powerful parliaments, although they were usually not elected by anything approaching democratic means. Absolutism focused on the idea that putting all responsibility in the hands of one man, the king, would avoid corruption and allow for more centralised, efficient and dynamic rule. Of course in practice this meant peripheral regions tended to suffer at the expense of the great and good fawning around the royal court in the capital, and absolutism was ended in most countries by the reaction of the French Revolution.

The WI I'm proposing here is of absolutism under a democratic system. This could be an elected monarchy or a republic with a very powerful presidency. The idea being that the electorate (which is assumed to be universal suffrage or very nearly so) elects an individual to be president (probably for life) and that, at least in the idealised form, the people are considered all to be equal, with no nobility or parliament.

Such a system deliberately rejects checks, balances, or constraints on the power of this one-man executive, prizing efficiency and centralism above such things.

Is there any way we could get a system like that in a given country?

Although the USA has, of all modern countries that could reasonably be called democratic, the most powerful one-man executive, I don't think a system like the one above would work in the USA or Russia: large, federalised countries would tend to be inimical to it for the reasons I mentioned above. However, in order for it to be interesting WI, it has to be adopted in a country that's at least a moderate power. I suspect something the size of France would be about the limit.

So, where could this system arise/
 
One could say that Napoleonic France, even before the Empire, was a democratic absolutist state. Napoleon placed the most major of legislation, and constitutional changes, up to the people as referenda, gaining the people's word before following through.
 

Philip

Donor
The papacy seems to partially fit this description -- in a more republican than direct democracy way.
 
The Fifth Republic in France is pretty much "democratic absolutism" with a very strong presidency that is really not counter-balanced by any other part of government. The only real opposition to the presidency is demonstrated via street protests.

The American system could also be branded some kind of "democratic absolutism", since the Congress has been increasingly sidelined, especially in the last 60 or so years. The "Imperial Presidency" established by FDR has basically continued, with an interruption because of the reaction to Watergate. However, the War Powers Act, and the acknowledgment of "executive privilege" demonstrates that the President has a good deal more power in the American system than any other branch.

So I would say that unless you can figure out how to have a government that respects its citizens enough not to just mow them down when they openly and loudly protest its policies (France), or have a system where there is enough respect and support for the other branches of government that when the executive oversteps its boundaries, there is a way to reign it in (America), then you will simply have "one man, one vote, one time" and whomever wins the election will kill all other challengers.

If you want "democratic absolutism" then I would look to the English Commonwealth. If you have the Commonwealth continue (I'm a fan of the Levellers' constitution leading to a lasting British Republic) then that system will probably eventually end up with a central executive office which has more and more power vested in it. By the modern day, you could have an enormously powerful executive office, whose only real checks come from tradition and other elites.
 
Hmm, this is essentialy Rome under Caesar, though the Senate is the one doing the electing. Perhaps Athens under Pisistratus is the most direct analogue, but there wasn't exactly an election there. Pericles might qualify as well (if you beleive Thucydides) but the demos sometimes didn't elect him strategos and fined him a few years after war broke out, so they frequently checked his power.

It's funny because at first I thought you meant a democracy where the power of the people is to be absolute. In this case, Athens is easily the best example.
 
The United Kingdom?

The United Kingdom comes scarily close

There are several reasons why the Parliament's will tends to closely echo its PM's will. And thus we've seen a steady erosion of the rights that Britons once lead the world with: privacy, freedom of protest, jury trial, habeas corpus, freedom from political prosecution, etc. London has become the Panopticon.

An attempt was even made in Parliament to give Tony Blair the ability to avoid having to waste all that time convincing Parliament of things. It took considerable daylight to stop that one.

It's because Parliament has few checks and balances; ironically, Britons were growing freer in the ways when the King was more powerful, and now it's getting less free now that it's a democracy. Go figure!
 
Top