Midrasian Chartism
 | This article is incomplete because it is pending further input from participants, or it is a work-in-progress by one author. Please comment on this article's talk page to share your input, comments and questions. Note: To contribute to this article, you may need to seek help from the author(s) of this page. |
 |
|---|
| This article is part of a series on the politics and government of Midrasia |
Midrasian Chartism, sometimes referred to as simply Chartism is a variant of liberalism most prominent in Midrasia, but also present in a number of democracies throughout central Asura and other former Asuran colonies, particularly in Rennekka and Vestrim. The ideology is similar to classical liberalism in its promotion of civil liberties under the rule of law whilst emphasising strong economic freedoms with little intervention from the central state in the economy. Importantly however, Chartism is notable for its emphasis on retaining the role of the church for creating a moral society, as well as promoting a gradualist approach to democratisation, sometimes characterised as 'democracy from above' or 'gentry democracy'.
The term Chartist in Midrasia originally referred to anybody under the Old Republic who supported the creation of a Consitutional Charter to limit the power of the Consul whilst also empowering the legislature and codifying a set of rights and liberties enjoyed by all citizens. With the creation of a Midrasian constitution in 1791 the Chartist faction formed a new government under the leadership of Patrice Malouines creating the basis of an official Chartist Party which coalesced in the mid 1830s.
Though the Chartist Party of Midrasia collapsed during the 1870s its ideology and ideals continued to be upheld by a number of other political parties such as the Liberal League and the newly formed Republican Party. Ultimately, in 1902 with the creation of the 'New Political Settlement' which sought to end decades of political division and instability, the Chartist name was revived for the newly formed Chartist Bloc which now represents a wide spectrum of Midrasian centre-right to right-wing beliefs. Not all parties who subscribe to the bloc can be regarded as ideologically Chartist, however those which have historically been successful within the bloc adhere to policies compatable with traditional Chartism.
Overview
The origins of Midrasian Chartism can be traced back to the Old Midrasian Republic following the Midrasian Civil War. The first document which could be regarded as an official constitution for the newfound republic was known as the Instrument of Government. This document set out the operating procedure of the new state, as well as the powers endowed to parliament and the Consul. However, the document itself placed a considerable amount of power in the hands of the Consul, effectively making parliament a 'rubber-stamping' body for the Consul's agenda. Though the decision to create a powerful executive was rooted in the instability the republic faced following the civil war, over time considerable opposition grew to the current settlement, with many viewing the Consul as merely a continuation of the previous despotic monarchy.
Under the Old Republic Midrasian politics was generally split between the Devreuxan faction, who supported a strong Consulship, and the parliamentarian faction, who supported restrictions on executive power. Between 1648 and 1791 power tended to fluctuate between these two factions with Consuls from the house of Devreux tending to concentrate power in the Consulship, whilst those from outside of the family tended to empower parliament. By the late 1700s the parliamentarian faction had pledged its support to drawing up a new constitutional charter to permanently curtail the power of the Consul, a move which greatly angered then-Consul Jean-Jacques Devreux. This, in conjunction with a number of economic and political factors saw the Consul dissolve parliament marking the beginning of the Midrasian Revolution.
With the deposition of Jean-Jacques Devreux by the Parliamentarian Army and its international allies, the victorious parliamentarians set about creating a new constitutional document which sought to prevent any future abuses of power by the executive by empowering an elected legislative body and introducing national elections to the Consulship. The new Constitutional Charter also contained a bill of rights outlining the rights and privileges enjoyed by Midrasian citizens, as well as outlining the new legislative procedure as well as the creation of a centralised judicial system.
The Midrasian Constitutional Charter of 1791 is generally regarded as the foundational document for the Chartist ideology in its original format. However, it is notable that Chartists were originally divided over a number of issues, with the ideology evolving considerably throughout Midrasian political history. Two of the earliest debates among the Chartists regarded the role of both the church and slavery in the new Midrasian state. Many Chartists supported retaining the status of Orthodox Alydianism as the official faith, whilst also maintaining its educational institutions and representatives in parliament. A small number however, supported outright secularisation along the lines of many other classical liberals. Ultimately, the Alydian faction won out, though the secularisation debate is one which remains within modern Midrasian politics. In regards to slavery, though abolition was one of the first constitutional amendments passed under the new republic, a considerable portion of Chartists supported retention in the belief that abolition was incompatable with the state's laissez faire economic attitude.
Notably the early Chartists were apprehensive about the expansion of the voter franchise, believing that it was necessary for an individual to be sufficiently educated before being allowed the right to cast their vote. It was believed that allowing the masses to vote could very easily lead to mob rule or directionless populism which only sought the winning of power over outright societal change. As such, at the birth of the new republic only the male property-owning gentry was provided with the right to vote. However, the Chartists promoted a new system of educational institutions across the country, in an effort to prepare the wider population for greater participation in public life. It was also believed that it was the duty of the existing gentry and church to prepare the rest of the population for a wider participation in public life by setting up educational institutions, thereby contributing to the wider enlightenment project and establishing the notion of a 'democracy from above'. Nevertheless, this restriction of the voter franchise and the gradual pace of change was exploited by the Conservative parliamentary opposition who campaigned to expand the franchise to all working men over the age of 21, thereby winning the 1847 elections and keeping the Chartists out of power until 1856.
By the latter stages of the Nineteenth Century the Chartist Party and Chartism in general faced a considerable number of challenges to its continuing existence. By the 1860s a new faction within the party had formed calling for greater government involvement in the economy in support of so-called positive liberty as opposed to the negative liberty which the party had traditionally championed. These new social liberals clashed with the traditional free-marketeers which had led the Chartists for generations and were one of a number of factors which led to the party's eventual demise. These social liberals eventually went on to form the Liberal League in 1871. Additionally, the party faced new parliamentary opposition from both the Radical Party and Socialists leading to a breakdown of the traditional two-party system. The Radicals and Socialists called for greater governmental intervention in the economy, education, as well as the creation of a minimum wage and working hours. However, by far the largest challenge faced by the Chartist ideology and the ultimate cause for the demise of the Chartist Party was Midrasia's defeat during the Mydro-Veleazan War and the ensuing Crisis of 1871. The Party's non-interventionist economic policy and a lack of investment in both the military, education, and infrastructure was blamed for Midrasia's defeat. The defeat itself saw many social liberals and conservatives leave their traditional parties to join the Radicals, Republicans, Devreuxans, Revanchists, and even the Royalist Party for the chaotic election of 1870 which resulted in a minority Radical government. Two years later with the emergency election of 1872 the Chartist Party had all but ceased to exist with most of its members defecting to either the Republicans or Liberal League.
By the end of the Nineteenth Century and the onset of the Twentieth Century it was widely believed that the Chartist ideology, or at least its emphasis on economic non-interventionism was dead, with the new Conservative government looking to invest in new infrastructure and oversee a radical overhaul of the nation's educational and military organisation. However, the advent of neoliberalism and the elections of Ambrose Rabassa and François Bourgogne during the 1970s can be seen to show a re-emegergence of traditional Chartism, emphasising laissez faire economics and the necessity to live a moral life through the church. Today Chartism can be seen to be upheld be most major parties of the Chartist Bloc, particularly the Republican Party, Democrats, UDA, and Liberty. Additionally, the Liberal League of the Reform Bloc can be seen to uphold aspects of the ideology whilst promoting more secularist positions along with policies emphasising greater economic intervention.