Is it reasonable to claim that peaceful transfers of power began, globally, in the United States?

score:6

Accepted answer

I think this is probably one of those things that is technically "true" as long as you very carefully define your terms. (I have seen a similar claim made which focused on the election rather than the executive power). Some counterexamples - and arguments why they might not be counterexamples - just thinking about say post-1400. (I don't know the classical period well enough to comment there)

  • British elections during the 18th century certainly changed the power in the legislature and governed who would be prime minister - North's faction came into power in 1768, and Pitt's in 1784, but the key question is "executive". Executive power wouldn't pass completely to the prime minister and cabinet for a while yet - it was still partly in the hands of the Crown. They were undeniably peaceful, at least by 18th-century standards.

  • Electoral monarchies - where the Crown does not pass by hereditary succession but is selected by a group of nobles - had certainly been in existence for a long time, and while some bitter wars happened as a result of these, there were certainly cases where it happened peacefully. However, these usually followed the death of the first monarch, and so might not count as a "transfer".

  • A number of monarchs have voluntarily and peacefully abdicated during their lifetimes, meaning a peaceful transfer to a new executive, but these abdications usually involved power passing to someone selected, nominated, or approved by the outgoing monarch, and so would not count as "rival".

  • There is also a question of scale. This sort of transfer almost certainly happened in smaller polities which were controlled by oligarchies, like the various free cities of the Holy Roman Empire, the Italian city-states, etc - there was an executive leader or small council of leaders, which periodically changed hands between factions or families. In Venice, for example, the Doge and Council of Ten were both elected. Not all will have been peaceful, of course, but no doubt many were. However, you might choose to discount these as they were "not countries" - although in the case of Venice, for example, that is certainly a bit shaky. Where oligarchic groups are involved, it might also be tricky to identify a single point where power was transferred.

So you can come up with reasons why any historical counterexample might not count for the question as defined. I suspect this shows up that it's not a very meaningful statement...

More post

Search Posts

Related post