Themiclesian politics in the 1800s
 | 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. |
Themiclesian politics in the 1800s evolved from centralized, authoritarianism to parliamentary democracy by the end of the century, with a recognized dominant-party period between 1801 and 1819. The iniquity of fiscal burden of war, made acute by consecutive defeat, was one of the most powerful themes in the political scene and has been connected with both the Conservative and Liberal parties that dominated the century. Military failure led to dimunution of royal power and the dissolution of the royal party that supported it.
Profits, connected to broad swathes of society, was another source of contention. Colonial interests aligned with royal desires for expansion and power across Columbia, and its distribution to the crown's supporters in the aristocracy is deeply associated with resentment against military expenditure by aristocrats that opposed the crown. At the same time, the near-complete elimination of tariffs bolstered Themiclesia's international trade and granted influence to those involved in it. After the collapse of Themiclesian monopoly on tea, silk, and porcelain, manufacturing industry allied with political reformism to create the Liberal platform, while the Conservatives came to be characterized by agrarian interests and opposition to unrestricted pursuit of productivity that easily converted into political power.
Like most other democratic systems of the age, Themiclesian democracy was explicitly confined to classes considered invested in society, discriminated first through hereditary right then property. Both parties altered the franchise principally for their political benefit, but neither weathered the risk of disenfranchising existing voters. Suffrage thus extended from fewer than 9,000 holders in 1801 to over 4,200,000 by 1900. Elections were heavily influenced by bribery and gentlemen's agreements between local parties to fix outcomes. As the suffrage expanded, many candidates relied on treating and pressure from "social leaders" like employers, landlords, and gang bosses to support their campaigns; the susceptibility of electors to pressure was often used as an argument against expansion of the franchise by both parties.
Loyal opposition only became institutionally accepted in the premiership of the Lord of Dubh (1826 – 33), previous to which the Conservatives attempted to purged their opponents from all public offices, supporting their dominance. His and several subsequent administrations saw Conservative weakening and the conversion of some supporters to Reformist causes, and previous measures meant to cement power to the gentry, as defined by heritage, allowed an opposition to co-exist. After the widening of the franchise, power in both parties lay with notables who both exerted influence over politicians between elections and assisted in turning out voters during them. These notables were a large subset of Themiclesia's social elites, who collectively dominated not only the politics but the economy as well.