Heh–except that power transitioned exactly as expected and planned for. But maybe this points to a problem with my definition: nobody would consider that a break in the continuity of US government.
In general, it seems to me that when violence breaks the continuity of government, it’s because the violent person takes power. Maybe that’s what I should’ve said: when the new government takes power through violence, it resets the clock.
Really not trying to move goalposts, just trying to figure out how to define a concept of continuous government.
Edit: Captain, good call on the Glorious Revolution; that would match my criteria. Shallora, the gradual lessening of monarchical power wouldn’t, since it wasn’t done through violence.
What about the civil war? Emancipating the slave population was both violant and a big change. Not only but the vast majority of US land was taken by force through the 18th and 19th centuries from the Natives. I wouldn’t really call those peaceful transfers of power.
There’s such a problem with definitions here that it’s hard to set it straight. Failed revolutions don’t count, but coups that work within the confines of the constitution do.
Would the German occupation of Norway* (1940-1945) count, when the government and crown relocated to England but never formally surrendered and enjoyed the complete support of the public? The Quisling government was never recognized by any ruling or legislative body of Norway, nor elected. If it does, does that mean countries that have in periods declared martial law are resetting the timer? If it doesn’t, does that mean the Italian occupation of Ethiopia doesn’t count? (In which case, Ethiopia would be a serious contender - as the system of government never changed during the coups, only the bosses)
Is this limited to the current day? Is the inclusion of commonry voting or voting for women a change of government sufficient to reset the clock? Can a country truly call itself a representative democracy before its’ entire population is allowed to vote? If so, where does the border of “major constitutional changes” go? Slavery, differantiation of race, women’s sufferance, voting of the commonry and so forth does not count?
There’s just so much nitpicking potential for there to be an obvious answer. For instance, Bush was not elected in any sense of a democratic election acknowledged outside the US in 2000. The electoral college is unique to the US, as far as I know. If the standard is international mean based, does that constitute an undemocratic exchange of power? If the standard is US-centric, does that exclude Norwegian party coalitions who form joint governments?
Does adding or removing another country from an empire constitute a radical enough change to reset the counter?
And restricting the focus of it to constitutions - only relevant since the end of the feudal age - makes it even more narrow and, IMHO, useless.
Norway is of course disqualified by the Long Night - just using it as an example.
The United States government was not overthrown during the Civil War, although it temporarily lost a lot of territory. And while the US engaged in wars of conquest during the 19th century against indigenous folks, these wars never resulted in the US government being overthrown.
As for Norway’s government in absentia, that’s an interesting case. I’d say that if a government has no actual authority in its claimed country, it’s not a government that counts.
Again, I think the revision I need to make is that, through an act of violence, someone new takes over the governing of the nation. If someone engages in violence sufficient to persuade the current government to change course, that doesn’t sound like much of a break in governmental continuity–but if someone says, successfully, “We’re taking charge now, we’ll shoot you if you resist,” that’s a break.
Nitpicking the definition can be helpful, of course, in terms of refining it. Better yet, though, if you see a loophole in the definition that leads to a counterintuitive result, why not see if you can fix it yourself?
I may be wrong in thinking that the basic idea of a continuous sovereign government with peaceful transitions to new governmental teams is an intuitive idea that’s just slippery to define precisely.
Actually I was a little off - Menard commanded the initial thrust, but it was Guillaume Marie Anne Brune who appears to have been the overall commander. Marie Anne? Huh.
Not that anyone really cares, of course. I just hate when I fuck up nitpicks ;).
Also the United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has only existed since 1927 but I suppose the central government wasn’t altered significantly by the establishment of the Irish Free State.
What about Sweden? They haven’t been ruled by a foreign government since the 1520.s and there really hasn’t been that much of a hassle when new royal families have taken over.
Sweden should at the least count since Jean Baptiste Bernadotte took over in 1818.
(which, depending upon your definitions should put it in the runnings)
Seems reasonable. But England still seems to be in the lead.
Fake Tales of San Francisco, neither expansion nor compression would reset the clock, according to both my intuition and the (evolving) definition I’m using.
I don’t know if there are any historical examples of this, but suppose we had a hypothetical nation or tribe where the accepted means of succession was for a challenger to challenge the existing leader to a duel to the death. This country continues for centuries to use this same means of succession, with a new boss successfully offing the old one every decade or so. Here, then, we would have the new ruler coming to power by violence, but maintaining the system of government.
