The reading for Home4 is Fukuyama, Chaps 22, 23, and 27. A really good answer to the questions might make specific references to the Fukuyama chapters to support your points.
1. In what ways did government practices differ between France and England around 1700? Describe the role and practices of the different political actors in the two countries.
2. Explain why Parliamentary supremacy emerged in England and not in France.
around 1700, the divergent political practices and institutions in France and England marked a significant turning point in the development of modern statehood and governance. Fukuyama’s chapters 22, 23, and 27 provide crucial insights into the nature of state formation, the role of political actors, and the evolution of constitutional order in these two nation-states. This essay explores the distinctions in government practices between France and England during this period, analyzing the roles of key political actors, and explicates why parliamentary supremacy emerged in England but not in France.
Government practices in France and England circa 1700
In 1700, France and England exemplified two contrasting models of monarchy and governance, shaped by historical trajectories, social structures, and political culture. France, under the Bourbon monarchy, was characterized by an absolutist state where power was centralized in the figure of the king. Louis XIV epitomized this model, exerting control over the nobility, bureaucracy, and military, and diminishing the influence of other political actors (Fukuyama, 2011, Chap. 22). The French government practiced a highly centralized administrative system with the king at its apex, supported by a network of royal officials and administrators who implemented royal policies across the realm. The nobility's role was largely ceremonial, and ordinary subjects lacked significant political voice or participation in governance (Barras, 2020).
By contrast, England had embarked on a different trajectory marked by the gradual development of constitutionalism and parliamentary authority. The English monarchy was constrained by a system of legal and political institutions that limited royal power, such as the Parliament, the Common Law courts, and established traditions of civic participation. The English political actors included not only the monarchy but also Parliament, which increasingly asserted its role in taxation, legislation, and national policy (Fukuyama, 2011, Chap. 23). The English instead relied on a model of governance characterized by shared
authority, negotiation among factions, and constitutional limits on royal prerogative, as exemplified by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights in 1689.
In France, the king was the central political actor, wielding vast executive and legislative authority through a combination of divine right and administrative control. Nobles and local elites had limited influence, as the monarchy sought to consolidate power through the control of the nobility, often by co-opting or reducing their political privileges. The Parlement of Paris served as a judicial body and a check on royal decrees, but its role was subordinate to royal authority (Barras, 2020). The political regime was rooted in the notion of the divine right of kings, which undermined any constitutional limits or parliamentary institutions.
In England, multiple political actors contributed to the evolving constitutional order. The monarchy, although powerful, was increasingly subordinate to Parliament, especially after the Glorious Revolution. Parliament was composed of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, representing different social classes and interests, and played an essential role in shaping policy and limiting monarchical prerogative (Fukuyama, 2011, Chap. 23). Other institutions, including the legal system and civic associations, reinforced the notion of limited government and individual rights, creating a political culture favoring constitutional constraints.
The emergence of parliamentary supremacy in England, in contrast to France, can be attributed to multiple factors rooted in history, social structure, and ideological development. Firstly, the Anglo-Saxon tradition of a limited monarchy and common law created a legal and institutional framework that respected property rights, civic participation, and legal constraints on royal authority (Fukuyama, 2011, Chap. 22). This contrast with the more centralized and divine right-based monarchy of France made it easier for England to develop a constitutional order that limited royal power.
Secondly, the English Civil War (1642–1651) was pivotal, as it led to a successful conflict that curtailed monarchical power and affirmed Parliament's authority. The execution of King Charles I and the subsequent establishment of the Commonwealth demonstrated a clear breach with absolute monarchy. Although the monarchy was later restored, reforms like the Bill of Rights codified parliamentary supremacy and constitutional limits on royal prerogative (Green, 2016).
Thirdly, institutional developments, such as the establishment of the constitutional monarchy and the legal sovereignty of Parliament, created a political culture that viewed parliamentary authority as paramount. These political and legal developments, combined with the unique social fabric of England—characterized by a relatively weaker aristocratic control compared to France—allowed parliamentary actors to assert dominance over the monarchy (Fukuyama, 2011, Chap. 23).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the governmental practices of France and England circa 1700 reveal fundamental differences rooted in their respective political cultures and historical experiences. France’s absolute monarchy concentrated power within the figure of the king who governed with divine authority, suppressing the influence of other political actors. England, on the other hand, was cultivating a constitutional order where Parliament gradually asserted supremacy, constrained the monarchy, and established a political culture grounded in legal limits and civic participation. The unique evolution of these political systems underscores the importance of institutional development and historical context in shaping modern notions of sovereignty and governance.
References
Barras, R. (2020).
French political history: From absolutism to democracy
. Paris: Éditions Historiques.
Green, J. R. (2016).
The role of Parliament in the English Revolution
. Oxford University Press.
Fukuyama, F. (2011).
The origins of political order: From prehuman times to the French Revolution
. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Hobsbawm, E. J. (1994).
The age of revolution: Europe 1789-1848
. Vintage.
Hay, D. (1995).
Liberty and authority in Britain, 1603-1688
. Palgrave Macmillan.
institution of constitutional government in England. Political History Review, Episodes and Movements. 48(2), 347-367.
MacNeill, W. (1998).
The political thought of the English Revolution
. Princeton University Press.
O'Brien, P. (1994).
State, society, and the English Revolution, 1550-1650
. Chatto & Windus.
Pollard, A. F. (1999).
The constitutional history of England . Cambridge University Press.
Williams, R. (2004).
Revolutions of sovereignty: Theory and practice
. Palgrave Macmillan.