What is the oldest continuous government?

Factual Questions
121

A much stronger argument could be made for the union of England and Scotland in 1707, which created the Kingdom of Great Britain, or the Union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801, which created the United Kingdom.

1922 and 1937 (adoption of the Constitution) would both be much more plausible dates than 1949. From 1937 onwards, Ireland had a President who exercised all the functions of the head of state except the issue and acceptance of letters of credence for diplomats, and the conclusion of treaties. For those functions, Irish law allowed “the king recognised by” Australian, Canada, Great Britain, etc. “as the symbol of their co-operation” to act on behalf of Ireland when advised by the Irish government to do so. In terms of government, all that happened in 1949 was that the President assumed the exercise of those functions in place of the British king.

122

I thought about that, but the Union didn’t actually change the government of the majority country much, which touches on my fourth criteria. But I’m not going to die in a ditch over it.

Good, point, well argued. Carry on!

123

[QUOTE=Malden Capell]
So, if I may propose these criteria:

  1. peaceful change over a long time doesn’t count as a reset, except for:
  2. sudden, major changes, which remake the very basis of how the constitution works do count as a reset. (such as abolition of monarchy, even if peaceful, or the transition from absolutism to constitutional government, or the change from a presidential to a parliamentary state, even if peaceful)
  3. violent events which do not impact the underlying basis of the state do not count as a reset (so the assassination of Alexander II of Russia does not count, but one that caused the downfall of the state would count - although I’m struggling to think of one off the top of my head)
  4. absorption of formerly independent states/breaking away of formerly dependent states do not count
  5. conquest by a foreign power, and reconstitution under the original system of government, does not count.
    [/QUOTE]

How does Canada fare, then, under your criteria? Of the four original provinces, Nova Scotia’s constitution dates back to 1758, New Brunswick to 1784, and the two Canadas (now Quebec and Ontario) to 1791. (Nova Scotia and New Brunswick still operate under those original constitutional structures, within the overall format of the Canadian Constitution.)

All constitutional changes since then have been made through the established legislative / government mechanisms of the day, peacefully, so criterion 1 is met.

The two Canadas were united into one province in 1841, but through the ordinary legislative process, which comes within criterion 4. Then Confederation in 1867, uniting the three provinces and splitting Quebec and Ontario again, which would also seem to come within criterion 4. The expansion of Canada to include the other provinces also occurred through the ordinary legislative/constitutional process.

There has not been any violent changes to the constitutional structure, nor foreign invasions, so criteria 3 and 5 are met.

With respect to criterion 2, the basic constitutional structure of a constitutional monarchy is met, just as with the example of Great Britain. Unlike the US Revolution, where there was a fundamental change, and where previous laws from the colonial power suddenly stopped applying, in Canada there has just been a gradual development. There was a gradual devolution of power from Britain to the Canadian governments, but none of those changes have occurred through a revolutionary manner. All have been done through the established constitutional mechanisms of the time.

Of course, the net picture today looks very differently from what those four provinces looked like in the 18th century, but if the issue is essentially a system of government that has functioned continuously without any major break, Canada seems to meet the criteria as one of the oldest governments.

124

Northern Piper, all very good points, although would you consider the establishment of Canada is a self-governing Dominion a sufficient marking point? But then, a natural riposte would be when that counts - the British North America Act, the Statute of Westminster, or the domestication of the constitution in the 1980s? And also, does it simply count as a change of dynasty?

If anything I think it makes Canada significantly a stronger candidate than I before appreciated.

So I have no real answer, and I wonder if OP will ever get one!

125

I don’t really understand this rule. Would Japan surrendering to the United States in 1945 reset their clock? Intuitively, I’d say yes, it should.

As for Canada, their clock starts when they became fully independent from the UK. Any earlier, and they’re a colony on Britain’s clock.

126

I would vote that 1801 is the correct year for the UK. Between the US Revolution, the Irish Rebellion, the French Revolution, and the king’s madness, Parliament basically decided that they’d better switch the way the government was run. This was during a phase when George wasn’t ill, so in a technical sense it was peaceful but, then again, in lots of bank robberies the robber simply threatens the use of force without ever even proving that he has a weapon, yet we wouldn’t call bank robbery a “peaceful” activity. I think it was fairly clear to everyone that if the monarchy didn’t go away, it was going to be made to go away.

127

To what event in 1801 are you referring, in which Parliament formally or informally relinquished the Crown of power?

128

It’s a valid point, especially as the Japanese constitution was vastly rewritten and the powers of the Emperor greatly curtailed. And even then, if I didn’t count that, I’d count it from the Meiji Restoration, myself.

Well as I mentioned in my post to Northern Piper, there’s arguably no clean break in which Canada moved from entirely dependent to entirely sovereign.

129

Well, a change in sovereignty isn’t actually in the list that Malden Capell proposed. The point that I’m making, though, is that you can have an overal system of government with more than one legislative body, and the balance of authority between those legislative bodies can change incrementally, through normal constitutional/legislative mechanisms, without violence, revolution, coups, etc. When that happens, the system of government overall is continuous, even if there are marked changes within the government as to where power lies.

That’s exactly what has happened in England/UK since 1688. In 1688 the monarchs had real political power. Today they have almost none. And yet, it’s a continuous system of government, one that has gone through changes and developments in three centuries, but continuous.

In the case of Canada, that’s exactly what happened. The last change in government through violence, conquest, etc., happened in 1763. Then, you had a government system where the bulk of the power lay with the British Parliament, and some power lay with the colonial legislatures. Over time, the British Parliament devolved power to the colonies, and the colonies merged into a federation, which in turn gradually acquired greater and greater authority by devolution from Britain, to the point where the British Parliament eventually lost all power.

After two centuries of this development, you certainly have a completely different government, but the point is that if you’re looking for a continuous government, that’s what you’ve got.

Another way to look at it is legal continuity. I’ve cited laws in a legal brief that date from 14th century England which are in force today in Canada. I’ve cited English court cases from the 17th century, which are still of legal effect here. It is a continuous system of government, different from those in the US, which have a marked break in the political structure/sovereignty/legal continuity in the late 18th century.

130

I don’t think so, if you’re asking about continuity in government. Confederation was a dramatic development in British North America’s constitutional evolution, but the key point, for me, is that it was done through the normal legislative and constitutional norms of the time. The British subjects in the three provinces petitioned the British government, to which they adhered, to make legislative and constitutional changes which the three provinces had agreed upon. When the British Parliament did so, it acted as part of a continuous legal/constitutional process.

The Fathers of Confederation did not see themselves as casting off an imperial power. Rather, they were exercising their rights as British subjects to persuade the British government to make changes to the governmental structure in British North America.

Devolution of power can result in marked changes over time, but it can be continuous in nature, and the overall system of government is thus marked by continuity, which is the question raised in this thread.

131

Devolution in the UK is an interesting, similar, example. In 1999, the British Parliament created the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh National Assembly. Prior to those bodies being created, there were regional governments in Scotland and Wales, created by Acts of the British Parliament, with the British Parliament over all.

Once the Scots Parliament and the Welsh Assembly were created, there was a new level of government, over the regional governments, yet subordinate to the the British Parliament. In the past 15 years, the Scots Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have gradually acquired greater powers from the British Parliament.

Does that mean that the clock has been re-set in Britain, and there’s been a break in continuity of government? I would say no. The Scots Parliament and the Welsh Assembly were created by ordinary acts of the British Parliament, under the same constitutional and legal principles as other laws.

But if that doesn’t re-set the clock for the UK, then the same analysis applies with the creation of the Canadian confederation and the new Parliament. The British Parliament created a new level of government, and a new Parliament, but it was done through the same constitutional and legal mechanisms as other legal changes in the British system.

132

I think the British monarch has more power than some posters are giving her credit for. Don’t all British laws require the Royal Assent? The Queen can veto any legislation she chooses. The fact that no monarch has in 300 years doesn’t mean she can’t or won’t.

She could choose to be as active in legislation as George III, using the threat of withholding Royal Assent to any law that isn’t crafted to her liking.

Or am I wrong about Royal Assent?

133

No, you’re quite correct. Royal Assent remains intact, although it could only ever be used once and be lost forever.

And yes, it’s only out of convention that the Queen appoints a Prime Minister to govern for Her; She could decline to appoint one and exercise the Executive powers personally.

134

Thanks. So The Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 established a powerful monarch who must rule with Parliament. How is that not the current government? The Queen meets weekly with her Prime Minister, and her influence is not clear or publicized.

I understand that the Queen is not “powerful” in exercising her authority, but not exercising one’s legal prerogative is not the same as not having that prerogative.

I vote for the UK as oldest, with the date being 1660, The Restoration. The Glorious Revolution was a “foreign prince” only if you count William. If you count Mary, the former heir presumptive assumed the throne when requested to by Parliament. The precedent for Parliament to offer the Crown had been established by the Restoration. The GR was accomplished by Parliament exercising power it had had since at least 1660.

135

Hmm, I think I’d still plumb for 1688/9 myself. Although it’s worth noting the great lengths the Convention went to in 1688 to insist what it was not doing was deciding the succession, they did offer the Crown to William and Mary but with clearly set conditions and limits on their Prerogatives. It laid down a new basis for how the Crown and Parliament interacted which had never been agreed or codified before. And the Restoration wasn’t, strictly speaking, Parliament offering the Crown to someone who happened to be the son and heir of the last King; it was Parliament officially repenting for the regicide and the Commonwealth and asking the undoubted rightful King to claim his throne. There were no conditions laid upon Charles’ restoration, and the Cavalier Parliament fully encouraged him to govern in much the same way as his father and grandfather had done.

But I’m splitting hairs (heirs?) :slight_smile:

136

I can accept the Glorious Revolution as the most recent reset of British government. It appears to make more sense than the Restoration.

What I really want to argue is 1066, but I’d better convince myself first before I take a public position that no one agrees with.

137

I had a history teacher in I think JHS who said that the QoE “would have to sign her own death warrant” (his exact words).

I doubt he meant such a event could literally come to pass. He was employing hyperbole to illustrate the monarch’s real powerlessness as opposed to her technically legal power which, if ever exercised, would within a day lead an act of Parliament officially stripping her of that power, and of her throne as well.

So no, she could not chose to be as active in legislation as GIII, and expect to continue as monarch - those days are gone forever.

138

And if she refuses her Assent to the bill stripping her of her throne?

139

One would think the bill would clearly stipulate that assent was no longer required.

As for the exact details, useful precedent can no doubt be found in the English Civil War era, when the need for a royal signature was easily enough dispensed with. Hopefully, though, even the most radical modern PMs would not want to go as far as the Cromwellians eventually did.

140

That’s not how it works. So Congress could pass laws by a simple majority without a presidential signature by way of an addendum reading, “This bill not subject to Executive Consent or Veto.”?

No useful precedent can be found from the Commonwealth or Protectorate as all Parliamentary acts without the Royal Assent were declared illegal. Do you suppose Charles II recognized the legitimacy of his father’s beheading?