English Political Thought Between Middle Ages and Modern Age
Part II
Abstract: La guerra civile inglese (1642-1651) fu il culmine di un lungo conflitto tra monarchia e Parlamento, scatenato dall’autoritarismo di Giacomo I e Carlo I, che tentarono di governare senza il controllo parlamentare. Dopo anni di tensioni e imposizioni fiscali unilaterali, la guerra esplose nel 1642 tra i realisti, fedeli alla corona, e i parlamentari, sostenitori della sovranità parlamentare. Nel 1645, il New Model Army guidato da Oliver Cromwell sconfisse i realisti, portando alla cattura e all’esecuzione di Carlo I nel 1649 e all’instaurazione della Repubblica del Commonwealth. La guerra civile vide emergere diverse correnti politiche e religiose: i presbiteriani, favorevoli a una monarchia costituzionale, gli indipendenti, sostenitori di una politica basata sul censo, i levellers, che chiedevano suffragio universale e libertà religiosa, e i diggers, fautori della proprietà collettiva della terra. La Repubblica, però, si trasformò rapidamente in una dittatura militare sotto Cromwell, il quale sciolse il Parlamento e governò da Lord Protettore fino alla sua morte nel 1658. Il regime crollò nel 1660 con la Restaurazione della monarchia sotto Carlo II. L’evento stimolò un intenso dibattito repubblicano tra pensatori come John Milton, che difese la libertà politica e il diritto del popolo a deporre i sovrani tirannici, e James Harrington, che propose un modello di governo misto basato sulla distribuzione equa della proprietà terriera. Sebbene la Repubblica inglese fu breve, le idee politiche emerse in quel periodo influenzarono profondamente il pensiero politico moderno, anticipando i principi del costituzionalismo e della democrazia rappresentativa.
The English Civil War (1642-1651)
Following the prosperous Elizabethan era, King James I introduced a governance model in England that relied heavily on the support of the Church while disregarding traditional parliamentary freedoms. The king steadily eroded Parliament’s authority, distributing titles and public offices to loyalists and clients, thus ensuring his power base. This favouritism marginalized Parliament’s role, sowing discontent among its members.
The situation deteriorated further when Charles I, James’s son, ascended the throne in 1625. Charles inherited both his father’s political ideals and methods, maintaining a firm belief in the divine right of kings. From 1629 to 1640, Charles ruled without convening Parliament, a period referred to as the “eleven years of tyranny.” During this time, he unilaterally imposed taxes and ruled through personal edicts, bypassing the checks and balances traditionally provided by Parliament.
By early 1640, facing a rebellion in Scotland and desperate for funds, Charles was compelled to seek Parliament’s assistance. However, the relationship between the monarchy and Parliament had already deteriorated beyond repair. Tensions escalated further, and by 1642, England plunged into civil war, with pro-parliamentary forces clashing against royalist supporters in a struggle over the nation’s political future. This marked a critical turning point in the conflict between absolute monarchy and the rising demand for parliamentary sovereignty.
The main stages of English Civil War
In 1640, tensions between Scotland and England escalated into war when Scotland resisted the Crown’s decision to replace its Calvinist Church with the Anglican Church. Facing the Scottish insurrection and lacking funds, Charles I was forced to convene Parliament for the first time in eleven years. The first session, known as the Short Parliament, was quickly dissolved by the king, but a second session, the Long Parliament, was convened later that year and remained in place until 1653.
In 1641, a rebellion in Ireland further strained Charles I’s resources, leading him to again seek financial support from Parliament. However, Parliament responded with the Grand Remonstrance, a document demanding the king’s recognition of its powers and control over military action in Ireland. This intensified the political conflict. In 1642, Charles attempted to arrest key parliamentary leaders, but the coup failed, forcing him to flee London and setting the stage for civil war between Parliamentarians and royalists.
In 1645, the parliamentary army, led by Oliver Cromwell and composed of well-organized volunteer militias known as the New Model Army, achieved a decisive victory over the royalist forces at the Battle of Naseby. However, internal divisions plagued the pro-parliamentary camp from 1645 to 1649, forcing Cromwell to mediate and navigate conflicting factions in order to preserve the revolutionary cause. Meanwhile, Charles I, seeking to exploit the turmoil, raised an army in Scotland to reclaim his throne.
Cromwell responded decisively, defeating the royalist forces at the Battle of Preston in 1649 and capturing the king. After purging Parliament of its more conservative members, the remaining body, known as the Rump Parliament, put Charles I on trial. He was convicted of treason for violating the ancient liberties of England and sentenced to death. On January 31st, 1649, Charles I was executed, marking a pivotal moment in the struggle between monarchy and parliamentary sovereignty in England.
Civil War’s political doctrines
English society during the Civil War was highly dynamic and deeply fragmented along both social and religious lines. Between 1645 and 1653, the parliamentary side was divided into four key factions, each with distinct political and religious visions.
The Presbyterians represented a rigorously Calvinist approach to church governance, advocating for a church structure based on councils led by elders, or presbyters, and the elimination of the Anglican Church. Politically, they were moderate monarchists, supporting a constitutional monarchy that would preserve unity and protect the privileges of the upper classes.
The Independents, the group to which Oliver Cromwell himself belonged, were the largest and most diverse faction. They championed a more “liberal” outlook, advocating for limited political participation based on property ownership (census-based active and passive suffrage) and supporting free markets, private enterprise, and property rights. In religious matters, they pushed for the separation of Church and State and promoted tolerance for various faiths within English society.
On the far left of the parliamentary front were the Levellers, who advocated for radical reforms such as universal suffrage, absolute religious freedom, and a republican constitution that would guarantee the equality of all citizens. They sought a more inclusive and egalitarian political order, often clashing with the more conservative elements within the Parliamentarian ranks.
The Diggers, a movement rooted in rural communities, called for the abolition of private property and the establishment of communal ownership of land. They opposed the “enclosure” policies that restricted common grazing rights and exacerbated rural poverty. Led by Gerard Winstanley, the Diggers envisioned a form of agrarian communism where land was held in common for the benefit of all, without the exploitation by aristocratic landowners. In his 1652 work, Plan of the Law of Freedom, Winstanley embraced the Levellers’ and Diggers’ demands, emphasizing the primacy of God and the role of believers in fulfilling the divine plan. He denounced Cromwell’s rule as a dictatorship and advocated for agrarian communism, arguing that true freedom resided in access to land and the right to work, free from parasitic forms of exploitation that favoured the aristocracy.
In this vision of communism, the collective welfare of society took precedence over individualism, with the belief that human dignity was inherently tied to access to land and the resources needed for sustenance. Winstanley’s radical ideas highlighted the deep social tensions of the time and the desire for a more just and equitable society, particularly among the rural poor.
Idea of Republic in English 17th century thinkers
In 1649, following the execution of Charles I, England entered its first phase as a republic, known as the Commonwealth, which included Scotland and Ireland. Oliver Cromwell, leader of the revolution, quickly assumed control and, by 1653, took the title of Lord Protector. However, Cromwell’s regime soon resembled the absolutism it had sought to overthrow. His rule became a military dictatorship, aimed at suppressing both remaining monarchist sympathies and radical reform movements within society. Cromwell dissolved Parliament and replaced it with assemblies loyal to him, creating a system that mirrored the authoritarian governance the revolution had initially opposed.
After Cromwell’s death in 1658, his regime quickly unravelled. By 1660, an army composed of the old landed aristocracy marched on London, successfully restoring the monarchy by placing Charles II, son of the executed king, on the throne. This marked the end of the Commonwealth and the beginning of the Restoration.
These events sparked a rich political debate in England, particularly among republican thinkers who sought to explore the nature and ideals of the Republic. Influenced by classical thinkers like Polybius, Sallustius, and Machiavelli, figures such as John Milton defended the republic as the best system for safeguarding personal freedom, fostering self-government, and encouraging active citizen participation in political life. They argued that Charles I’s execution was ideologically justified, as the king had violated the terms of his coronation by undermining the political freedoms of the nation.
For these thinkers, freedom was defined as the absence of domination, while self-government was equated with a mixed government—one that balanced various powers to prevent tyranny. In this conceptual framework, monarchy was identified with tyranny, and republicanism was seen as the embodiment of political virtue, characterized by patriotism, civic responsibility, and dedication to the common good. This republican tradition, though short-lived in practice, profoundly influenced later political thought, emphasizing the importance of civic engagement and the protection of individual liberties in a balanced political system.
John Milton
John Milton (1608–1664) championed republican values, as articulated in his Areopagitica, a manifesto advocating political freedom as the foundation of a constitutional state. His philosophical and political views strongly defended freedom of conscience and open debate, believing that moral life and genuine freedom could only flourish in a society that embraced pluralism. Milton’s passionate support for press freedom reflected his broader commitment to the free exchange of ideas and the abolition of censorship, as he believed that diverse opinions naturally guided individuals toward the common good.
In Milton’s vision, sovereign power ultimately resides with the people, who entrust authority to the king, not by relinquishing their power, but by creating a relationship of trust. The king’s authority is “derived” from the people, not original, meaning he must remain accountable to them. Should the people lose confidence in the king, they have the legitimate right to remove him from office, even to the extent of imprisoning or executing him. This was seen as an exercise of the people’s fundamental right of resistance against tyranny.
Milton’s republican model emphasized a governing council composed of the most capable individuals, selected by the people. Unlike other doctrines that envisioned temporary councils or assemblies, Milton advocated for a perpetual council whose power would be balanced by local and federative bodies. This structure aimed to ensure that governance remained decentralized and representative, safeguarding both political freedom and accountability.
James Harrington
James Harrington (1611–1677), in his seminal work The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656), proposed a mixed form of government in which wealth serves as the fundamental force shaping national governance. His political model was deeply rooted in the social and economic realities of his time, linking politics with the distribution of wealth and reflecting the power structures within society. For Harrington, republicanism was not only an ethical and political ideal but also a historical inevitability, born out of the necessity for equality and its intrinsic connection to the concept of freedom.
Harrington’s vision of a mixed state sought not to eliminate individual liberties but to redistribute them in accordance with the equitable distribution of property. Central to his republican model was the implementation of an agrarian law designed to redistribute land in a way that mirrored the power dynamics and social interests of the time. He believed that the establishment of a republic must begin with land reform, as the economic foundation of political power was grounded in land ownership.
The landed gentry, in Harrington’s view, were the appropriate group to ensure the application of these laws. They would be elected by secret ballot, and their office would be temporary, ensuring accountability and avoiding entrenched power. His political structure featured a Senate responsible for issuing laws, supported by a separate Chamber tasked with debating them. The ultimate guarantor of freedom, however, remained the people, who held the final decision-making power.
Harrington also emphasized the importance of administrative decentralization, advocating for strong local self-government. This decentralization was key to fostering consensus, extending popular participation in political life, and preventing the concentration of power. Harrington’s model thus combined the ideals of republicanism with practical mechanisms for balancing power, ensuring that political equality and liberty could be maintained in a stable and just society.
Lascia un commento