These were a series of discussions within the Army held on 28 October 1647 concerning the make-up of a new and more just system of government for England. This in turn led to one of the most important events in English history, the Putney House debates. Ironically, the king’s power grab led to the rule of half the country directly by Parliament, and that in turn led people who were willing to die to defend the principle of parliamentary sovereignty to ask whether that sovereignty itself needed some examination and improvement. The Westminster system was brutally revised by the shooting war that followed. In such reviews, it acts as representative of constituencies, well understood as having diverse and sometimes conflicting interests. Central to these is Parliament’s role in reviewing the legislation put before it by the executive – currently the Prime Minister and Cabinet, previously the monarch.
Like all successful democratic systems, the Westminster system is dependent on a series of checks and balances. This complex history illustrates the sophistication of the Westminster system. Parliament, though, was simply doing its job of reviewing legislation and restraining recklessness.Ĭharles reacted to Parliament’s criticisms by refusing to summon it and trying to rule the country alone – the personal rule, something of a figleaf term to cover what was really a power grab by an absolutist monarch – a policy that led him into increasingly unjust and resented taxation policies that directly affected the gentleman landowners who made up the vast majority of members of Parliament. Parliament was deemed an obstacle because it wouldn’t give him his own way. Like some members of the current executive, Charles I claimed that his position was the traditional one, that he was defending the Church of England and the historical constitution of the three kingdoms.
Further reading Whose side is parliament on?
0 kommentar(er)
