mathematics HEALTH ENGINEERING DESIGN MEDIA management GEOGRAPHY EDUCA E MUSIC C PHYSICS law O ART L agriculture O BIOTECHNOLOGY G Y LANGU CHEMISTRY TION history AGE M E C H A N I C S psychology Modern Europe Subject: MODERN EUROPE Credits: 4 SYLLABUS The Origins of Modern Politics-1 The Modern State and Politics, Political Transition in Britain: 1780-1850, The American Revolution The Origins of Modern Politics-2, Radical Action by the Masses, Birth of the Modern French State European Political Mobilizations, New Political Systems Industrial Revolution in Europe Industrial Capitalism, Industrial Capitalism in England, Industrial Capitalism in France and Germany Industrial Capitalism in Russia Modern Industrial Society Demography, Family, the Social Classes in Europe, Transition to Class Society The Nation- State System Nationalism and the Nation-State, Formation of Nation-States - 1: British and French, Formation of Nation- States - 2: Germany and Italy, Empires and Nation-States - 1: Ottoman and Habsburg Empires, Empires and Nation-States - 2: The Russian Empire and Soviet Union 66 Colonialism and Imperialism Colonialism, Patterns of Colonial Domination-1: Direct Rule, Patterns of Colonial Domination-2: Indirect Rule, Imperialist Rivalries The Crisis of the 20th Century Liberal Democracy, Counter Revolution I: Fascism to Conservative Dictatorship, Counter Revolution II: National Socialism in Germany, The Socialist World I, The Socialist World II The World at War The Two World Wars, Nature of the Wars, Glimpse of the Post-War World Suggested Readings: 1. Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks, Early Modern Europe, 1450-1789, Cambridge University Press 2. John Merriman, A History of Modern Europe, W. W. Norton & Company 3. John Merriman, A History of Modern Europe: From the Renaissance to the Present, W. W. Norton & Company CHAPTER 1 THE ORIGIN OF MODERN POLITICS-I STRUCTURE Learning objectives The modern state and politics Political transition in Britain: 1780-1850 The American revolution Review questions LEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying this chapter you should be able to explain: Explain the nature of the modern state and the role of bureaucracy, Explain the growth of nationalism and the development of the nation state, Explain the procedure of democratization, the role of judiciary and the political parties in the modern state, Understand the nature of British polity and several political institutions, Learn in relation to the concept of liberty and the background for the rising demands for reforms, Understand the dynamics of the working class movements and its consequences. Understand the pre-revolutionary American society, Explain the circumstances leading to the American revolution, Examine the main thrust of the American constitution, and Lean in relation to the institution of slavery and the development of democratic politics in America. THE MODERN STATE AND POLITICS Direct Rule and Bureaucracy Chronologically the first and perhaps the mainly significant foundation of the modem European state was direct rule. From the fifteenth century onward, European monarchs increasingly imposed their direct rule on their subjects and concentrated all power in their hands. They did so through depriving their feudal lords and estates of power and appointing royal officials or lesser nobles directly responsible to or dependent only on the monarch. This was the beginning of a is full of such bitter straggles flanked by the state or a monarch and feudal or local lords, all culminating in a series of royal absolutisms. The mainly extra ordinary state-builders of this type were Ivan IV (the Terrible) and Peter I (the Great) of Russia, Frederick William and Frederick II of Prussia, Cardinal Richelieu and Louis XIV of France, and Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell of England. Therefore only the king could maintain armies and create war, tax the population, adjudicate in disputes, punish offenders, and in scrupulous take the life of a subject; and he did so through his new royal bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is an administrative hierarchy of officials with the following characteristics as ideals: they are salaried professionals who have no personal interest in the decisions they take or enforce; they carry out the orders of their superiors and issue orders to their inferiors who implement such orders in the same fashion; they act just as to riles laid down through law, not just as to personal whim or preference; they are selected for their expertise in the region concerned, not for their personal, family, or class connections; they are replaceable like parts of a machine, and the newcomer or substitute will act in the same manner as the person who has been replaced, such that little depends on presently the individual. This is the model of bureaucracy; and this scrupulous maimer of acting has been described rational-legal, as described authoritatively through Max Weber. Though, practice departs significantly from the model, as necessity always happen; but it gives us with the mainly significant insights into the functioning of modem administrative structures, whether of the state, the political party, a business corporation, a religious hierarchy like a Church, or even simple associations like clubs. As we live with such bureaucracies in our daily lives, and since this is the ideal which we expect the government to live up to, we little realize how dissimilar it is from other shapes of rule. Indeed, when we encounter other shapes, we tend to describe them as arbitrary and corrupt. For instance, if officials were to be appointed for their family connections or money they had paid, if they were to take decisions because it suits them personally or the mood takes them, were they to act without orders, against orders, or outside the law, were they to be appointed without the necessary expertise for the job, or were everything to depend on one individual as if he or she were irreplaceable, we usually dismiss such systems as irrational, corrupt, and archaic. Yet that was perfectly normal for all states or shapes of rule before modem times, and only now do they appear undesirable. We have absorbed this textbook ideal and measure all administration through these standards, approximately unaware that these began to be introduced less than two hundred years ago in Europe and have been accepted thereafter as standards the world in excess of. Anything that is not ―modern‖ in this sense we tend to call ―traditional‖ or employ some pejorative expression. It is bureaucracy in such ―national-legal‖ form that creates the modem state so immensely powerful in the sense of being effective. Bureaucracy is an instrument that is more reliable and responsive than any other and can penetrate any field. Impersonality, expertise, action just as to rules, strict hierarchy, and easy replace skill creates it possible to carry out decisions with precision and predictable results. Rulers dependent on subordinates who have a personal interest, do not obey orders, do not possess expertise etc are unable to act effectively. That is why in pre-modern times rulers‘ actions were immensely ostentatious and dramatic but distant less effective than those in modem times. Displays of power in pre-modern times used to take the form of personal opulence in the costume and life-styles of rulers, elaborate court etiquette, enormous generosity through rulers on sure special occasions like coronations, arbitrary mercy to criminals, extraordinary violence to political opponents etc. But these were displays to impress the public periodically and had to be repeated regularly because of their limited effect. The modem bureaucracy has dispensed with mainly of such routine displays while reserving them for great national occasions with the intention of impressing the public. Though, for everyday rule and control, it does not need such ostentation because it can expect troubles, solve so several of them before they mature, target a criminal or political opponent with extra ordinary accuracy, and ensure compliance. In these senses, the modem state is more absolute than any old-fashioned tyranny or autocracy although it co-exists with democracy and rests universally on democratic principles, which is a phenomenon that needs to be explained. As a corollary to this vast expression of power, there is no sphere in which the modem state does not act. Formerly, states would act on rich and powerful persons and tax the rest of the population, and little else. Now the state seeks to expect troubles, to hunt for sedition and to assess the mind of the people. It deploys systems of surveillance and gathering of intelligence on every aspect of the life of citizens in order to foresee a problem or to decide how best to act in any number of hypothetical situations. Similarly, these states began to mediate in all shapes of disagreement, whether industrial, social, or professional, of locality or of family, issuing regulations governing all these characteristics of life. They assumed responsibility for education, welfare, health, the condition of the poor, the old, children, and even the yet unborn. They began to regulate life in these thousands of dissimilar methods in the minutest detail which we today accept as perfectly normal and even necessary. In addition, the modem state‘s capability for violence and repression is infinitely greater than that of any of the mainly well-known tyrants in history derives not only from its claim to the monopoly of violence but more from the organization of military systems and the technological development of modem weaponry and weapons systems. In pre-modem times, a feudal magnate could maintain an army that could challenge the royal army; but modem armies may be afforded only through the state and cannot be dreamt of through even the wealthiest plutocrat. The first variation is of sheer numbers. The French Revolution demonstrated what a modem army and total war could be through calling up all able-bodied citizens to the army.