WI: The English Civil War Resulted In An Actual Democratic Republic?

[AltoRegnant]

OTL, despite the parliamentary victory, the english civil war resulted in despotic rule by Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector. As a result of this, the parliament eventually used his death to replace him with the restored Charles II as the King, though at that point Parliamentary supremacy was a condition on the crown, and not something any British monarch would be able to seriously challenge again, especially when a few short years later, James II was forced to abdicate in favor of Mary.

But let's say that Cromwell doesn't get dictator-y. maybe he just hits his head, or dies before he consolidates power. This leaves the title 'Lord Protector' vacant, and the Parliament effectively becomes the only government. That being said, would Parliament feel the need for an executive outside of themselves, like the staadholder in the netherlands or the president of the probably-butterflied-US? How might that be decided?

Now, the fact of it is the vast majority of people in this new Commonwealth of Britian would not be able to vote, even if they were literate men. What would this mean for early politics? Would Britain still practice the free trade it wound up adopting as the national policy sooner, or would this earlier revolution mean mercantalism remains the primary economic theory?

OTL, AFAIK, there wasn't a major push by the various crowns of Europe to reinstate the Stuarts, even if France thought it'd be useful to put a puppet crown back in Westminster, so we'll assume the same happens- who would the main enemies and allies be? i know that cromwell fought a war with spain and the anglo-dutch wars were during the protectorate, so would we see an early pro-french lobby?

 

[Fodedor_de_Casadas]

No constitutional monarchy practical model would've massive down the line effects in Europe. It may end with way more monarchs heads being chopped off if there's no ideological middle ground between absolute monarchy and republic when the age of revolutions comes.

 

[Fodedor_de_Casadas]

Now, the fact of it is the vast majority of people in this new Commonwealth of Britian would not be able to vote, even if they were literate men. What would this mean for early politics? Would Britain still practice the free trade it wound up adopting as the national policy sooner, or would this earlier revolution mean mercantalism remains the primary economic theory?

Britain only really adopted free trade when the superiority of it's manufactures became obvious, which was a very rational policy to have. I don't see why this would change by means of structural reasons.

 

[NedStark]

Britain only really adopted free trade when the superiority of it's manufactures became obvious, which was a very rational policy to have. I don't see why this would change by means of structural reasons.

That's right. In fact, the Commonwealth Parliament passed the very first version of the Navigation Act, since the merchant class - which preferred protection from Dutch dominance - had greater influence over policies under the Commonweath.

 

[NedStark]

OTL, AFAIK, there wasn't a major push by the various crowns of Europe to reinstate the Stuarts, even if France thought it'd be useful to put a puppet crown back in Westminster, so we'll assume the same happens- who would the main enemies and allies be? i know that cromwell fought a war with spain and the anglo-dutch wars were during the protectorate, so would we see an early pro-french lobby?

The war with Spain was Cromwell's personal project -actually much of the political and merchant class did not want to fight because trade with Spain was going well for them. Without Cromwell, the Anglo-Spanish War would have likely been avoided.

The Anglo-Dutch War(s) would have happened. The outcomes, however, would have been different with a more militarily effective England.

As for France, relations initially would have been good, but tensions would have emerged over North American colonies plus Louis XIV's expansionism and Colbertism.

No constitutional monarchy practical model would've massive down the line effects in Europe. It may end with way more monarchs heads being chopped off if there's no ideological middle ground between absolute monarchy and republic when the age of revolutions comes.

It would have been a very intriguing development. The posterboy of constitutional monarchy would be PLC - which would have done this model no good.

 

[AltoRegnant]

The war with Spain was Cromwell's personal project -actually much of the political and merchant class did not want to fight because trade with Spain was going well for them. Without Cromwell, the Anglo-Spanish War would have likely been avoided.

The Anglo-Dutch War(s) would have happened. The outcomes, however, would have been different with a more militarily effective England.

would something like Britain holding more of the dutch Caribbean (in contrast to sniping jamaica off Spain,) and perhaps even an earlier conquest of the cape be in the cards? How might anglo-spanish relations evolve going forward? Especially since i don't see anything that stops CII from picking the bourbon candidate, meaning that such relations would naturally come crashing down as that new government takes over? granted, I'm assuming that crisis develops the way it did OTL, but i don't see anything stopping it unless Carlos gets petty and appoints a stuart as heir since they're no longer in charge of a major power

As for France, relations initially would have been good, but tensions would have emerged over North American colonies plus Louis XIV's expansionism and Colbertism.

european expansionism, sure, but was north America really that relevant to the politics of the day?

 

[AltoRegnant]

absent Cromwell, how might what we call the 'executive' branch of government evolve? OTL, that's nominally the british monarchy, but in practice has been the PM for centuries since about the glorious revolution. TTL, there's no cromwell or king, so is it simply the PM earlier? Would parliament elect someone separate from the PM? admittedly, i do think the idea of a presidential executive with a parliamentary legislative could be fun, but making it happen organically would be... wierd

 

[Analytical Engine]

absent Cromwell, how might what we call the 'executive' branch of government evolve? OTL, that's nominally the british monarchy, but in practice has been the PM for centuries since about the glorious revolution. TTL, there's no cromwell or king, so is it simply the PM earlier? Would parliament elect someone separate from the PM? admittedly, i do think the idea of a presidential executive with a parliamentary legislative could be fun, but making it happen organically would be... wierd

And extremely typical of Britain - the constitution is made of a thousand years of laws, conventions, and "just make it up as we go along".

 

[AltoRegnant]

And extremely typical of Britain - the constitution is made of a thousand years of laws, conventions, and "just make it up as we go along".

fair enough, but in my head, a president separate from the PM would require a bit more codification of duties, rolls and terms. that might just be my american nees showing

 

[Analytical Engine]

fair enough, but in my head, a president separate from the PM would require a bit more codification of duties, rolls and terms. that might just be my american nees showing

The Commonwealth did involve two written constitutions.

Instrument of Government - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Humble Petition and Advice - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[AltoRegnant]

The Commonwealth did involve two written constitutions.

Instrument of Government - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Humble Petition and Advice - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

it seems the Instrument of Government would be pretty close to what I was thinking actually, just with lifetime terms instead of a limited one (which i suppose might be a bit radical to the English, though idk much bout how the dutch and Italian republics handled that issue at present.) would an 8 year term with no limit on re-election be plausible as an idea?

 

[Analytical Engine]

it seems the Instrument of Government would be pretty close to what I was thinking actually, just with lifetime terms instead of a limited one (which i suppose might be a bit radical to the English, though idk much bout how the dutch and Italian republics handled that issue at present.) would an 8 year term with no limit on re-election be plausible as an idea?

This Britain could end up being not unlike Alexander Hamilton's plan for the United States - basically late 18th Century Britain with the serial number filed off, and a non-hereditary head of state, who serves for life.

 

[Emperor Lucas I]

Not going to happen - Parliamentarians were oligarchic not democratic. No reason for them to share their influence with the rest of population. There is a reason why OTL it took House of Commons over 200 years post English Civil War to become truely democratic.

 

[NedStark]

Not going to happen - Parliamentarians were oligarchic not democratic. No reason for them to share their influence with the rest of population. There is a reason why OTL it took House of Commons over 200 years post English Civil War to become truely democratic.

The OP did clarify that "democratic" a.k.a "democratic by 17th century" standard, not democratic.

european expansionism, sure, but was north America really that relevant to the politics of the day?

Well, the Commonwealth took Acadia without a declaration of war IOTL - France did not do anything because it was busy fighting Spain. It could create a precendent in which the Commonwealth might try that again with Quebec. This means, New France would have ended sooner.

 

[NedStark]

Carlos gets petty and appoints a stuart as heir since they're no longer in charge of a major power

The Commonwealth might actually approve this since it would actually lessen the chance of the Stuarts trying to reclaim England.

it seems the Instrument of Government would be pretty close to what I was thinking actually, just with lifetime terms instead of a limited one (which i suppose might be a bit radical to the English, though idk much bout how the dutch and Italian republics handled that issue at present.) would an 8 year term with no limit on re-election be plausible as an idea?

Yes I agree, as you said it would be quite similar to Hamilton's idea. As far as I remember, both the Dutch and Italian republics' Heads of State served for life. However, the English Parliament/Legislative Branch would hold more power than in their Dutch/Italian counterparts.

 

[WotanArgead]

It will definitely not be a democracy - all the republics of that time were oligarchies. In the best case, this will be the trade and craft layer (as in Florence, for example), or the aristocracy (as in Venice or Novgorod). In the first case, the republic plays a progressive role, and in the second, a reactionary one.

 

[NedStark]

It will definitely not be a democracy - all the republics of that time were oligarchies. In the best case, this will be the trade and craft layer (as in Florence, for example), or the aristocracy (as in Venice or Novgorod). In the first case, the republic plays a progressive role, and in the second, a reactionary one.

IMO, the English Republic would be run by both the gentry and the mercantile/trade/craft classes.

I can see it starting as an oligarchy but then gradually democratizing.

 

[Memoriam Damnatio]

This seems like a question for @VVD0D95.

Otherwise, the problem with any republic is the fact that everyone (in theory) agrees there should be a king and parliament. Only because of the intransigence and scheming of Charles and Parliament, did the civil wars break out. Any democratic republic will have several problems right away. Firstly Scotland won't be joining. Even the radical presbyterians like Argyll, supported a Stewart monarchy. So the english parliament will have to decide between imposing itself on Scotland or allowing a restoration there, with Charles II looking to reconquer the south. The second problem is support, by the time he's lord protector Cromwell he's pool of supporters is extremely narrow. The royalists and most of the anglican establishment revile him and want the king back. The moderate parliamentarians and presbyterians had just been purged by him. Finally the radicals, like the levellers have also lost faith in the grandees. Thus Cromwell can't allow open elections otherwise you would get the convention parliament. Finally the third reason is that the parliament cannot allow the new model army to continue to exist. The expense was too great, and the threat of a coup would always hang over any parliament that allowed the new model army to continue to exist. By the same token the army grandees were not going to simply melt away, and so the republic would need first find someway to neutralise the new model army, without crippling itself with the expense. To do that you'd need a longer bloodier war, which would radicalise the moderates enough to support a republic.

 

[AltoRegnant]

This seems like a question for @VVD0D95.

Otherwise, the problem with any republic is the fact that everyone (in theory) agrees there should be a king and parliament. Only because of the intransigence and scheming of Charles and Parliament, did the civil wars break out. Any democratic republic will have several problems right away. Firstly Scotland won't be joining. Even the radical presbyterians like Argyll, supported a Stewart monarchy. So the english parliament will have to decide between imposing itself on Scotland or allowing a restoration there, with Charles II looking to reconquer the south. The second problem is support, by the time he's lord protector Cromwell he's pool of supporters is extremely narrow. The royalists and most of the anglican establishment revile him and want the king back. The moderate parliamentarians and presbyterians had just been purged by him. Finally the radicals, like the levellers have also lost faith in the grandees. Thus Cromwell can't allow open elections otherwise you would get the convention parliament. Finally the third reason is that the parliament cannot allow the new model army to continue to exist. The expense was too great, and the threat of a coup would always hang over any parliament that allowed the new model army to continue to exist. By the same token the army grandees were not going to simply melt away, and so the republic would need first find someway to neutralise the new model army, without crippling itself with the expense. To do that you'd need a longer bloodier war, which would radicalise the moderates enough to support a republic.

I mean I did say Cromwell dies or never gets it into his head. Perhaps his absence means the war goes on long enough for that radicalization

 

[Memoriam Damnatio]

I mean I did say Cromwell dies or never gets it into his head. Perhaps his absence means the war goes on long enough for that radicalization

Without Cromwell you may get a Leveller mutiny that overthrows the grandees. After that it's mostly a matter of the new model army suppressing revolts till the end of time.