So why would one say that the Celts had an advanced form of governance? Why would one say that their format was quasi-democratic and in many instances lead to the lessening of being stuck with an incompetent or evil leader. We know very well that the Celts of the British Isles had many a king. Just look to Scotland as one example. We also know that in some instances due to issues with heirs general civil war broke out due to multiple claimants to the thrown.
The Celts had a general system that allowed for almost nonhereditary succession to the kingship.
From Helen Litton's "The Celts An Illustrated History we find the following:
"The King was not necessarily the son of the previous king, but could be a member of his extended family. The King could be chosen from any of the descendants of a common great-grandfather. Once you no longer had a grandparent or great-grandparent who had been king, you would no longer have any right to succeed. Succession seems to have been matter of the strongest of the available candidates exerting his right by demonstrating his strength, possibly with the agreement of the previous king on his deathbed." pg 91
One such explanation comes from W.A. Cummins in his book entitled : "The Ages of the Picts". He has a chapter on The Female Royal Line. "The Picts, unlike the English or the Britons, chose their kings from the female line..... Apart from importance of the female royal line, Bede's also suggests that the Picts (or more probably the kings of the various Pictish tribes) had some control over the choice of the overlord, the King of the Picts. Was this the secret of their success?" pg 32
So we see a quasi-democratic system. A general body of people had a say in the final determination of the High King or Local Tuath king. In as much as per the custom only a select number of people were eligible for the position of King. Keeping it from being totally hereditary lessened the chance of being stuck with a weak or less then desirable king. Sounds like some of the benefits endorsed by the constitutional system.
W.A. Cummins further elaborates on the benefits of this type of system.
"1. The system posed no threat to the sovereignty of the tribes that joined the scheme, nor did it give any long-term benefit to the family or tribe of the ruling king.
2. The age range of the candidates for the kingship would be considerable, probably as much as 30 to 40 years. Thus there was never the slightest need to need to choose a boy who was to young for the responsibility or a man who was to old and infirm to lead the nation effectively.
3. The number of candidates ensure that the kingdom need never be saddled with a king who was physically disabled or mentally unsound.
4. Unlike a modern election to choose a president or prime minister, the candidates for the Pictish kingship would be recognized as such from birth and would be well known before the old king died"
Many of the advantages are similar to that of the elector system. Not saddled with a bad candidate, large number of people to select from etc. Granted not all systems are perfect.
What is interesting to note is that the Pictish system of selecting from the female line seems to have been over powered by the influence of the English system on the eventual merged greater Scottish community that came from the Picts and the Dalraidians.
And it just came to mind that the Vikings had a system of governance that included the Thing.
Another quasi-democratic institution that will need to be further discussed in another post.
Buaidh - NO - Bas
No comments:
Post a Comment