The Roots of Democratic Self-government James Muldoon (bio) The Arab Spring is warming the seeds of democracy that exist in all societies but have remained latent until now. The natural growth process by which societies evolve into democracies has hitherto been stalled by the presence of tyrannical rulers and regressive social practices and customs, just as in the plant world natural growth is blocked by weeds and brambles. As the gardener cuts back the oppressive undergrowth to allow the development of the seeds, so the crowds calling for democracy generate a force that breaks through the political obstacles to democracy so the society can evolve as it should. Scenes of crowds demanding democracy such as we now see daily in television news programs have been around since after World War II, when the collapse of the European overseas empires was expected to pave the way for new democratic societies in Africa and Asia. The subsequent collapse of the USSR was to lead to democracy in the defunct Russian empire. In reality, the consequences have been mixed. According to political scientists, many of the new sovereign states are failed states or kleptocracies and not the successful democratic states envisioned. There have been civil wars and the establishment of authoritarian governments. The seeds of democracy that had begun to sprout have often withered in the face of the new weeds and brambles, and the crowds calling for democracy have gradually faded away in the face of heavily armed police and soldiers. Western observers initially cheered these crowds on, seeing in them the spirit of the movements that gave rise to democracy in Europe and the United States. Democracy develops when people demand it, so rulers must either give way to the crowd's demands or crack down firmly on the protesters. But is this true? If democracy is such a natural phenomenon, what happened to frustrate the democratic expectations of these new societies? The answer may lie in a small, largely forgotten book by Albert Beebe White (1871-1952), who taught English history at the University of Minnesota for many years. Near the end of his career he published Self-Government at the King's Command: A Study in the Beginnings of English Democracy (University of Minnesota Press, 1933), a reflection on lessons he learned from his study of English constitutional development. The most important lesson he learned was that, as the title of his book states, self-government and democracy did not emerge from popular demand. "If the title of this study appears to be a paradox, it is because our thinking is still generally ruled by the notion that wherever self-government has arisen it has been because people have wished to rule themselves and have striven successfully to this end" (1). Click for larger view View full resolution William the Conqueror, detail of the Bayeux Tapestry, ca. 1070, from John Collingwood Bruce, The Bayeux Tapestry Elucidated (London 1858). White's conclusion was that English kings and not their subjects demanded that the people govern themselves. The thesis is that English kings, working in what they believed to be their own personal interest, so used the English people in government, laid upon them for centuries such [End Page 2] burdens and responsibilities, that they went far toward creating the Englishman's governmental sense and competence . . . Norman and Angevin royal training had been more potent than an urge to self-government in Anglo-Saxon blood (2) In stressing the role of the Norman and Angevin monarchs of the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries in the creation of English self-government, White was attacking the once popular belief that the English were inherently inclined to democracy, the so-called germ theory of constitutional development associated with Herbert Baxter Adams. Why did English kings require the services of their subjects instead of employing full-time paid officials? White suggests that the kings distrusted full-time officials such as sheriffs, so they required their subjects to do many tasks performed elsewhere by officials in order to limit the power of the sheriff. It was also cheaper than hiring officials because the services were unpaid and seen as the obligation of the subject. The...
Read full abstract