Arthur Herman see parallels between the beheading of Charles I and this weekend's elections in Iraq. I do too, just very different ones. Herman writes: "When Charles I went to the execution block on January 30, a brave new world was born, that of sovereignty of the people." Well, a brave new world was born, but it had less to do with popular sovereignty than it did with Oliver Cromwell, a name that inexplicably appears nowhere in Herman's article about the results of the 1649 regicide. Charles I's beheading, 356 years to the day of the Iraqi elections, fortified dictatorial rule by a gang of religious fanatics. Isn't that the historical lesson that we should be concerned about when it comes to Iraq?

If WFB had gone into a comma in 1963 and woke up this morning, only to read this article published by his National Review . . . I think he would want to go back into the coma.

Wow. The contrast between the two links in this post is stunning.

Religious fanatacism is not the issue, just ask Louis XVI.

If one were so inclined, the words "dictatorial rule by a gang of religious fanatics" could be said of 17th century New England. It would nonetheless be a mischaracterization, as I believe it is here.

Are Shiite Muslims inherently incapable of participating in a democratic regime? I doubt it. They are certainly not as well suited as Christians, but a moderate interpretation of Islam may be sufficient. Will that regime be tyrannical? That depends on what counts as tyranny.

Democracy in Iraq will probably never look exactly like it does in the USA or Western Europe but if we can get something that is non threatening to the west and something that does not oppress its people then this would be a vast improvement. There is allot riding on this. We should all pray that it goes off successfully.

Brad: you don't think Cromwell's Purtian "Lord protectorate" (with its killings of Anglicans and Catholics, and especially of Irish, its violent manipulation of the house of commons, its abolition of traditional governing bodies, its supression of the press and of religious freedom) counts as dictatorial rule by a bunch of religious fanatics?

BTW: the anti-religious religious fanatics that overthrew Louis XVI were heirs to the movement that beheaded Charles I.

I find a certain irony in the fact that this administration has been empowered by Christian fanatics (regardless of where you come down on the issues, it cannot be contested that Bush would not have won the election without the Christian right's vote), only to empower (potentially---it depends on the outcome of the election)Islamic fanatics...:)

What a miserable article by Herman, but Dan, why exactly do you think that Cromwell and his forces did not represent "popular soeverignty"? That is what pop sov can often look like as it probably will in Iraq and as it did in the French Revolution. Democracy is an illegitimate form of government that is the idol of moderns.

Brian, read the link and it will explain in a thumbnail sketch. Cromwell's army arrested 110 members of parliament, with 160 other members leaving in protest. When his stooge parliaments didn't govern as he desired, he even disolved them. Across the Irish Sea, his armies killed nearly half the Irish population. The mob can be as oppressive as any monarch, but Cromwell, at least for most of his tenure, didn't represent the mob and certainly didn't have their blessing. He not only governed without the consent of the governed, but he governed tyranically.

Cromwell sucks.

Here's what I woud call that Brigid: a bad first try at a republic. Sounds like Cromwell and Lenin share some traits--but one of them is not a religious fanatic. Ask Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot whether you have to be a "religious fanatic" in order to abolish the right of free speech. (This is not a tu quoque, btw. We are looking at "religious fanaticism" as a requirement for the actions you listed. Nothing less.)

On the other hand, I pretty much echo Brian. Cromwell was not birthed to his post without regard of the will of the people. That it later turned out to be a bad choice, is a reason constitutions are a good thing. In fact, it could be this very period which made the colonists put the power in the institution and not the man.

Why? Bad things happen when a power goes unbalanced. Even if he started out or seemed to be a decent man. Evidence? See Cromwell.

We engage in futility to compare Cromwell with 21st-century human rights ethos. We learned some of those lessons when they did what they did.

Of course, Dan's point is sharpened by the idea that our founders were perhaps more a witness to abuses of legitimate power, while the Iraqi's just might have to go through their Cromwell in order to learn that lesson.

But on the other hand,I think the parallel was faulty from the onset. Because Hussein can be seen as the out-of-control dictator who stirs up trouble after after the thaw of monarchy, as well.

Neptune (or do you prefer Poseidon?):

You call Cromwell's imperialistic Puritan dictatoriship in England a "bad first try at a republic." Well, it seems to me that prior to and after Cromwell they had what I would call a monarchical republic (though not a democracy, following Aristotle here), but during Cromwell, that wasn't a republic. It was the first of the modern political fantasies.

Brigid,

(Just "SK" will do. It's just a handle.) But first, just how many republics were there around ~ 1650, for Cromwell to take note of?

Remember the Republic of Athens sentenced Socrates to death for fitting Miletus' view of what "corrupted the youth of Athens". Thus, Socrates' was not gauranteed a freedom of speech or assembly, or his "atheist" religion, for that matter. It was subject to the interpretation of fellow citizens--not only to stifle them, but to put someone to death for having run afowl of what amounted to ex post facto definitions of law.

The Roman Republic showed a great many corruptions as well, what with the patricians wholesale buying of the plebian votes, and arranging a legal voting proxy sometimes as a condition of employment.

But in regard to Cromwell, I find the site http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk , roughly to concur with other sources. The Commonwealth, in which Cromwell was a general of Parliament's new army (helping ensure that it is the "Long Parliament"), and Cromwell's Protectorate are not so easily pigeon-holed.

For example, it says the Rump Parliament was always meant as an interim government, and planned its dissolution. The successive Nominated Assembly (the same year) was dissolved (in 6 mos) by the moderates within, who were uncomfortable with its direction.

The next year the First Protectorate Republic is formed, which offers elections so much wider than before that Cromwell becomes unpopular in his own "dictatorship" Quoting, "Cromwell had high hopes...but the free elections held during the summer of 1654 returned a House that included presbyterians, republicans and even royalist sympathisers, all of whom were hostile to the Protectorate...."

The FPP is said to "...[restrict] moves towards religious toleration". And when Cromwell, establishes his Rule of Major Generals, the following month saw that "Cromwell receive[d] the Jewish leader Menassah ben Israel in London, signalling his willingness to re-admit the Jews into England."

Additionally, I note that as a final move to restrict Cromwell's power, the Humble Petition and Advice sought to give Cromwell the crown. Were he to accept the crown, he would be forced into a better understood role. And that was proposed by the Parliament elected out of reaction to the Rule--during the Rule.

On Aristotle: Sorry, but Aristotle's Politics contain nothing about what should be done against a persistent royalist sentiment that tries to re-establish itself. (Heck, Aristotle might even have thought that this is what comes from letting non-Greeks rule themselves.)

It looks to me that if Cromwell were fanatical about one thing, it was that Monarchy not come back. The Instrument and Humble Petition are the two main Constitutions in English history. So Cromwell's government was hardly resistent to becoming a constitutional republic. And that is the bulk of Aristotle's case.

Also it was the Long Parliament which abolished episcopy in 1646, three years before the execution of Charles and seven years before Cromwell is anything but a MP or a general. That was in response to Bishop Laud's wars in Scotland and Ireland to compel adherence from Irish Catholics and Scotish Prebyterians.

I mean it is all so sticky! The House of Commons refused to recognize the authority of the House of Lords in order to bring Charles to trial in the first place! Plus, Charles made a good argument that a purged parliament "represented" anything such as a public will. That argument invalidates the Rump Parliament and further legitimizes Cromwells expulsion when they tried to strengthen their foothold.

Cromwell's shortest council was the FPP, lasting 3 months before dissolution. The longest gap between councils is the 20 months under the Rule. Meanwhile, after refusing to convene parliament for 11 years, Charles dissolved the Short Parliament in 3 weeks.

English law demanded that parliament be called once every three years, yet Cromwell saw 4 assemblies in 5 years. So they improved a little on the frequency and the duration.

Yes, monarchy followed Cromwell's state. And that monarchy has continued until this day, with the houses taking a larger role all the time. I think one of the things the English learned was that throwing off the old came with some of the old problems in new garb, but without traditional legitimacy of sorts.

I stand by what I said.

Again, for Brigid:

Oh, I forgot:

"It was the first of the modern political fantasies."

I echo that idea to an extent. But we need to note that moves from monarchy to polity tend to come along with first steps like the Protectorate, the French Revolution, the Weimar (controlled) and National Socialism (independent), the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China.

I think that more recently democratic sentiments get merged with socialist sentiments. And thus countries have concurrent democratic/socialist destabilization. But it appears that more often than not democratization destabilizes at first.

To me, democracy is a legitimate cause, even if perilous. Socialist concerns are also legitimate, in my personal opinion. But I should note that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" seems to be the culprit in either calamity.

SeaKing: Thanks for the very interesting outline of the complicated history of Cromwellian England. There are a couple points though, that I think are mistaken:

1) In Aristotle's system, England's regime prior to Cromwell was not a monarchy. It seems to me that the distribution of power in feudalism and the Magna Carta are being forgotten here, and this is allowing us to pretend that, prior to Cromwell, England was just an absolute divine-right kingship, with no mixtures of aristocracy or rule by the people. In fact, in Aristotle's system, England would have been a mixed regime (though heavy on the monarchical and aristocratic elements), and Cromwell's period would have been a decisive move downward _toward_ a militarist democratic near-tyranny.

2) In Aristotle's system, it was a democracy and not a republic that killed Socrates. You further mistake Aristotle here: "On Aristotle: Sorry, but Aristotle's Politics contain nothing about what should be done against a persistent royalist sentiment that tries to re-establish itself." Of course -- Aristotle doesn't have anything against monarchies. In fact, a monarchy is a good regime (sometimes called the best), while democracies are ujust and deviant; republics are just regimes but not as good as aristocracies or monarchies. So Aristotle wouldn't have thought that "persistent royalist sentiment" were bad in this situation. He would have thought they were a god-send.

3) I think that regimes with a real rule of law do prepare well for a republic. But I can't agree that tyrannies do so. I don't think the USSR and PR of China have prepared their citizens for self-rule in a future regime. I may be misreading you here, but you seem to have a natural progression in your head in which countries move up from monarchies to republics, but that they usually take a tyrannical republic as a first step in this progress. I think this entire idea is mistaken. I don't think this move is necessarily progress. I don't think monarchies and republics are mutually exclusive. I don't think the development of republics require irresponsible tyrannical adolencent stages.

Sorry for all the Aristotle harping, but I do think that his classification is rather good, and it helps me escape from the modern bias in which everything is supposed to be progress toward democracy.

Thanks for the reply, Brigid. I agree with all of your points about Aristotle. I understand Aristotle's distinctions between tyranny and monarchy, oligarchy and aristocracy, democracy and polity.

I'm also aware of the republican aspects of 17th century England. But it was not working--and neither was there a respect for a rule of law--when the King refuses to hold parliament for 11 years in violation of the law governing its assembly. And again it was dissolved in three weeks when it doesn't go the king's way.

Only when parliament gets its own army does it get to stick around. Plus the seemingly ardent episcopalian Charles then makes a cynical deal with the Scots that presbyterianism could be the rule of the land for 3 years if they would invade his own country. We also have a hint that Cromwell grew increasingly doubtful about reaching an agreement with Charles as he just didn't trust him.

Oddly enough, from your original post, I took it that you were the modernist in this exchange. Mainly, I was trying to focus on what Cromwell might have thought he was doing. I was looking at what examples of representational government they had. Actually, I had been trying to counter what I read as your idea that representational governments are some sort of gaurantor of modern-style civil rights.

I have been arguing about what examples of polity Cromwell had to learn from. All the things that you leveled at Cromwell, were present in one form or another under Charles. The Commonwealth repealed the requirement that everybody, be they Catholic or Presbyterian or Puritan must show up for Sunday for the COE service. Also John Liburne was whipped and thrown into prison in 1637 for distributing Puritan pamphlets (did he have a right of speech?). So if this qualifies as an example of polity, then why do similar elements in Cromwell's day disqualify his state as one?

SeaKing: Quite an odd misunderstanding. I don't see how you pegged me as the Modernist here, but I pegged you for one (I guess, falsely). I took you as defending horrific regimes as somehow necessary prereq's for developing "republics", by which you seemed to mean anything that claimed democratic support. All I tried to say in my initial post was that NR and conservatism has changed quite a bit if they don't understand instinctively that Cromwell is a villian and his political experiment with Britain fanatical non-sense.

Look, I'm not in the habit of defending the British constitution. Granted that the kings right prior to Cromwell were irresponsible fiscally and mistreated Parliament, and granted that the situation is "sticky" and complicated --all the same, the illegal murder of the king by a bunch of rebells in the House of Commons purged violented of dissenters is sufficient reason for me to hate Cromwell. His predecessors were power-abusing monarchs; but he is a new breed of political creature, which we were to see more of: not hesitating to overturn all the institutions of British government and recast them; his authority being based on military power, pretenses of democratic support, fervency of a non-traditional religion, and a cult-of-personality (accounts show him as a likeable, personally well-behaved, and charismatic character); and not hesitating to murder vast numbers of Irishmen in an attempt to force himself on them.

Although his predecessors may have had some of his faults, he is a new creature, and the NR should understand that he and his murderous and rebellious deeds are not worthy of celebration. What is worthy of celebration is was the Brits did later with his body.