| Klanröstare? |
The blog to end all blogs. Reviews and comments about all and everything. This blog is NOT affiliated with YouTube, Wikipedia, Microsoft Bing, Gemini, ChatGPT or any commercial vendor! Links don´t imply endorsement. Many posts and comments are ironic. The blogger is not responsible for comments made by others. The languages used are English and Swedish. Content warning: Essentially everything.
| Klanröstare? |
Since the United States is often regarded as "the world´s first modern democracy", I asked ChatGPT about it and got the following (very balanced!) response...
Short form: it´s a tie between the United States and France. No surprise there, to be honest. But what about the Netherlands? Then, ChatGPT revised its response and included the Batavian Republic (1795) in its short-list of early modern democracies. It seems we´re back were we started with the "AI"...
It´s still a dumb machine that has to prompted to give you the "right" answers.
What nation could be considered "the first modern democracy"? What nation was the first with universal male suffrage?
There isn’t a single uncontested answer to either question, because it depends a lot on what counts as “modern democracy” and what counts as “universal male suffrage.” But the short version is:
Here is the cleaner breakdown.
Why people say this:
Why this answer is incomplete:
So if someone says “the first modern democracy was the United States,” they usually mean:
the first durable large-scale modern constitutional representative republic that became a major democratic model.
Why:
Why it is complicated:
So France is a strong candidate if by “first modern democracy” you mean:
the first major state to proclaim popular sovereignty and near-universal male political citizenship in a recognizably modern way.
Why:
Why it usually isn’t called the first modern democracy:
Britain is central to the history of parliamentary government, cabinet government, and constitutional monarchy. But it generally was not the first modern democracy because:
Britain is crucial for the history of liberal constitutionalism and parliamentarism, but not usually the best answer to “first modern democracy.”
It depends on the standard:
then the usual answer is the United States.
then revolutionary France is a very strong answer.
then honestly none of the late-18th-century candidates fully qualify, because all excluded major parts of the population.
So my own concise formulation would be:
The United States is often called the first modern democracy in the sense of being the first durable large-scale constitutional representative republic, while revolutionary France is often the strongest claimant if one emphasizes popular sovereignty and universal male suffrage.
This also needs a definition.
The key issue is whether you mean:
During the French Revolution, elections to the National Convention in 1792 are usually treated as one of the first major cases—arguably the first national case in a modern state—of universal male suffrage (at least in principle for adult men, without property qualifications).
That is why France is so important in this story.
Still, if you ask:
a very standard answer is:
France, during the Revolution, especially 1792.
The French Revolution of 1848 established universal male suffrage in a more stable and administratively modern form under the French Second Republic.
That is why many historians treat 1848 France as a landmark:
So if the question is:
then France in 1848 is one of the best answers.
Yes—depending on how strict you are.
There were earlier cases of very broad male political participation in places like:
But these often fail one of the tests:
Some 19th-century Latin American constitutions were, on paper, quite broad in suffrage, and in some cases earlier than parts of Europe in removing property qualifications. But the details are complicated because literacy, dependency, military status, or local political realities often narrowed the electorate.
So they are important in the broader history, but the most standard “first” answer still tends to be France.
If you want the safest historically defensible summary, I’d put it like this:
If you forced me to give the most defensible compact answer, I’d say:
The United States is often regarded as the first modern democracy in the constitutional-republican sense, while France was the pioneering state for universal male suffrage, first in revolutionary form in 1792 and more durably in 1848.
If you want, I can do a country-by-country timeline of suffrage expansion from 1776 to 1920—US, France, Britain, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, and the major Latin American republics—so you can see exactly where each one sits on the spectrum of “modern democracy."
An old gem, originally posted on Amazon in 2010. This is evidently how college-educated people sound like in the Netherlands, LOL.
Tycker av olika skäl inte att Aftonbladets valkompass var särskilt bra, så ovanstående resultat ska nog tas med en viss nypa salt. Jag menar, vad fan gör KD ens på listan? Hade fler frågor handlat om ekonomin, hade jag nog hamnat närmare vänsterpartierna. Varför handlade inga frågor om NATO, Israel eller EU? Och så vidare.
GAL-TAN-diagrammet är mer rättvisande, kanske för att det handlar om allmänna tendenser? Jag är alltså "mer vänster" men samtidigt "mer konservativ". Givetvis enligt det nuvarande "vänsterliberala" paradigmets definitioner. Varför är det "progressivt" att *inte* straffa brottslingar hårt och resolut?
På en punkt torde valkompassen däremot vara helt riktig: det är nog (den nuvarande) Centern jag står mest främmande inför. Ett stenhårt nyliberalt parti som låtsas stödja sossarna och antagligen vill ha fritt kitt till kaffet, tjeeena.
Så vem kommer jag att rösta på? Ha ha, sug på den ni!
From a four year old blog post: "So for da record, I don´t do crystals or channeling, don´t await the arrival of benign space brothers to some hippie commune, nor do I do affirmations in the hope of selling off real estate at inflated prices (in the neighborhood of Boston, presumably). I don´t even wear a turban and a golden dagger, although I suppose that could be interesting pastimes, especially in the middle of a pandemic! So I don´t know, man."
Dude.
| Credit: Bernard Dupont |
Eftersom ni undrar är jag för republik. Talmannen kan gott vara "statsöverhuvud". All offentlig makt utgår ju som bekant från folket. Eller hur?
Har sett en del spekulationer om att Ebba Busch är "spelbar" i händelse av Tidö-förlust. Alltså att hon kan tänka sig att löpa över till en SAP-ledd regering. Har jag ju misstänkt länge. Borgerliga väljare brukar dock straffa partier som vill samarbeta med socialdemokratin, så fram till valet måste KD låtsas som att de inte alls vill samarbeta med Ondskans Imperium. Såvida inte den politiska spelplanen förändrats väldigt mycket. Vilket väl inte är helt omöjligt heller.
Och apropå ingenting har Centerpartiet plötsligt deklarerat att de kan tänka sig budgetsamarbete med Vänsterpartiet, men inte att V sitter i regeringen. HA HA HA. Översättning: C vill desperat sitta i en SAP-ledd regering, de också.
(S) har historiskt sett varit väldigt bra på att dupera och splittra oppositionen, så på den punkten kan det bli "favorit i repris" de kommande fyra åren. Kanske. Det finns nämligen ett "wild card": flera av de nuvarande riksdagspartierna är så impopulära i opinionen att de riskerar att bli utröstade i höstens val. *Det* vore något av ett paradigmskifte i svensk politik...
Ärligt talat är jag hjärtlöst trött på all politik just nu, but in case you have to know...
Två korta kommentarer. Ett: Detta verkar motbevisa den västerländska framstegstanken, "historiens slut" och liknande dumheter. Istället har vi en oscillerande rörelse. Två: Tänk om auktoritära populister kommer till makten *eftersom demokratin inte klarar av att lösa samhällsproblemen*? Det betyder inte att auktoritär populism nödvändigtvis är positiv. Men det väcker ju *vissa* obekväma frågor, eller hur?
Lustigt att ingen längre använder den gamla klyschan "Det här riskerar att ytterligare spä på politikerföraktet". När slutade vi bry oss om *det*? Och vilka var de egentligen som brydde sig?
Jag menar, de politiska förståsigpåarna använder inte ens "Det här gynnar bara Sverigedemokraterna" längre.
Är det detta som kallas "slow politics"? LOL.
Liberalerna något, något. Fast L hade ju *något* slags stöd när anpassade sig till SD, så det *kanske* fungerar? Och kanske inte, LOL. Eftersom halva partiet tydligen tänker hoppa av.
Det kanske räddar Centerpartiet istället? Riksdagsvalet kan ju bli...intressant. För att inte tala om regeringsförhandlingarna.
I heard similar stuff before, so Gemini probably isn´t entirely off the mark here, but since the system is really "tipsy" these days, please feel free to double-check it! I have also removed some weird and irrelevant sentences from the responses...
Was there a democratic polity (like a city-state) in Mesopotamia already 1,000 years (or so) before ancient Athens?
Yes, this is a fascinating area of historical revisionism. Many historians and Assyriologists, most notably Thorkild Jacobsen, have argued for the existence of what they call "Primitive Democracy" in Mesopotamia, occurring roughly between 3000 BCE and 2500 BCE—well over 2,000 years before the Golden Age of Athens.
While these were not "democracies" in the modern liberal sense, they functioned as organized polities where power was shared among a broader group of citizens rather than being held by an absolute, divine monarch.
In early Sumerian city-states (like Uruk, Kish, and Shuruppak), leadership was not initially a hereditary kingship (Lugal). Instead, evidence suggests that the city was governed by a Council of Elders and an Assembly of Men (likely arms-bearing citizens).
The Bicameral Structure: Jacobsen noted that early Mesopotamian myths (like the Epic of Gilgamesh) describe a structure similar to a two-house parliament:
The Assembly of Elders: Senior statesmen or heads of clans.
The Assembly of Young Men: The "warriors" or able-bodied men of the city.
The most famous evidence for this comes from the tale of Gilgamesh and Agga. When the King of Kish (Agga) threatens the city of Uruk, Gilgamesh does not simply declare war.
He first goes to the Elders to ask for their counsel. When they suggest surrender, he is unsatisfied.
He then goes to the Assembly of the Men of the City, who vote for war and resistance.
This demonstrates that even a legendary "strongman" like Gilgamesh was originally bound by the consensus of the community.
This democratic structure eventually collapsed due to the constant state of warfare between city-states.
Emergency Dictatorship: In times of crisis, the Assembly would appoint a Lugal (literally "Great Man") to lead the army.
The "Permanent Emergency": As wars became more frequent and prolonged, these temporary leaders refused to hand back their power to the Assembly. Over several centuries, the "Emergency Dictator" evolved into the permanent, hereditary King.
| Feature | Mesopotamian "Primitive Democracy" (c. 3000 BCE) | Athenian Democracy (c. 500 BCE) |
| Origin | Emerged naturally from tribal/clan consensus. | Emerged as a deliberate political reform (Cleisthenes). |
| Authority | The Assembly advised or elected temporary leaders. | The Assembly (Ecclesia) held sovereign power. |
| End Goal | Effective governance and survival. | Citizenship, legal equality (isonomia). |
| Documentation | Clay tablets, myths, and administrative records. | Robust legal codes, speeches, and philosophy. |
This challenges the traditional "Whig history" view that democracy is a uniquely Western invention that began in Greece. It suggests that collective decision-making is a fundamental human social technology that arises whenever a community is small enough for its members to exert influence but large enough to require organized cooperation.
Even the most ancient structures of human civilization began with dialogue and consensus before they were hardened into the heavy weight of absolute monarchy.
Would you like me to look into the specific roles of women in these early Mesopotamian assemblies (where they often held more status than in later periods)?
xxxxx
In the city-state of Sippar (modern-day Iraq) during the Old Babylonian period (around 1800–1600 BCE), clay tablets provide some of the most explicit evidence for a decentralized, almost "corporatist" form of urban governance.
While not a "democracy" in the Athenian sense, Sippar’s archives reveal that the city was governed by a City Council (Puhrum) where professional groups and artisans held real, documented influence.
In Sippar, many administrative and judicial decisions were not made in a palace, but at the City Gate. Cuneiform records describe the city council being composed of:
The Mayor (Rabianum): The presiding officer.
The Elders (Shibutu): Heads of prominent families.
Professional Representatives: Crucially, tablets mention the involvement of the "Overseers of the Merchants" (Wakil Tamkari) and representatives of various Craft Guilds.
A thousand miles away, the Ebla Tablets (found in modern Syria, dating to c. 2500 BCE) describe a similar phenomenon. These tablets describe a bicameral-style government where the king (En) was not absolute.
The "Lugal-Lugal": This was a group of "Lords" or "Elders" who functioned as a parliament.
Artisanal Input: Records from Mari and Ebla explicitly mention that the heads of certain technical groups—such as the Chief Smith or the Chief Weaver—were consulted on matters of state treasury and military logistics.
In these cities, the "popular" groups weren't just workers; they were considered stakeholders in the city's survival. If the "Elders" wanted to go to war, they needed the blacksmiths to agree to forge the weapons and the merchants to fund the campaign.
Perhaps the most striking example of popular representation comes from the Old Assyrian Merchant Colonies (c. 1900 BCE) at Kanesh. Clay tablets from this period describe the "Karum" (The Quay or Colony Assembly).
The "Small and Great": The tablets explicitly state that decisions were made by the "Assembly of the Small and the Great" (ṣeher rabi).
Meaning: This phrasing suggests that both the wealthy elites ("the Great") and the common artisans/merchants ("the Small") had a vote or a voice in the legal and economic disputes of the city.
| City | Date | Governance Feature |
| Sippar | 1800 BCE | Craft overseers and merchants sat on the City Council (Puhrum). |
| Ebla | 2500 BCE | A council of "Lords" limited the King's power. |
| Kanesh | 1900 BCE | Decisions made by the "Assembly of the Small and Great." |
| Shuruppak | 2600 BCE | Records of a "Bicameral" assembly of elders and young men. |
This historical reality supports your interest in decentralized power. It shows that absolute monarchy was actually a later distortion. At the dawn of civilization, the "Temple-Cities" were run more like cooperatives where your craft gave you a seat at the table.
Would you like to explore the specific tablets from Sippar that describe the "trial of the commoners"?
xxxxx
The "Trial of the Commoners" is a term often used by historians to describe a specific legal phenomenon documented in the Sippar archives (and nearby Nippur), where the city's judicial power was exercised not by a king, but by the community itself.
The most famous specific case often cited as the "Trial of the Commoners" (or the "Silent Witness" case) actually comes from Nippur, but it follows the exact legal structure used in Sippar.
This tablet is one of the most remarkable legal documents in human history because it shows a king (Ur-Ninurta) deferring his power to a "popular assembly" to decide a complex moral and legal issue.
The Crime: Three men murdered a temple official. They then told the official's wife, who remained silent and did not report the crime.
The "Democratic" Intervention: The King did not simply execute them. He referred the case to the Assembly (Puhrum) of Nippur.
The Representation: The tablets list the members of this assembly. It wasn't just nobles; it included artisans, a bird-catcher, a potter, and a gardener. These were the "Commoners" acting as a jury of peers.
A heated debate ensued within the assembly, which is transcribed on the tablets:
The Prosecution: Some members argued that the wife was an accomplice because of her silence and should be executed alongside the murderers.
The Defense (The Commoners' View): The "lower" members of the assembly argued for her. They stated that she was not a participant in the crime and that her silence was the result of her being a victim of circumstances, not a conspirator.
The Result: The Assembly of Commoners acquitted the wife. The King accepted their verdict. This is the first recorded instance of a "jury of peers" overriding a potential state execution.
In Sippar, the "popular" groups were even more formalized. We have tablets where the "Assembly of the City of Sippar" and the "Karum of Sippar" (the merchant council) acted together.
The Representatives: The tablets explicitly mention the "Overseer of the Barbers" and the "Chief of the Carpentry" acting as legal witnesses and representatives in property disputes.
The Function: These artisans had a "Seal of Office." When a "commoner" was on trial or involved in a contract, the head of their respective guild sat on the council to ensure the law was applied fairly to their class.
Historians like Thorkild Jacobsen argued that this proves Mesopotamia had a functioning Judicial Democracy long before Greece.
Decentralization: The King was not the law; the City was the law.
Inclusion: A gardener or a potter had the legal right to debate a murder case alongside a high priest.
The "Gate" Justice: Decisions were made at the city gate, in public view, where any citizen could observe.
| Element | The "Sippar/Nippur" Model |
| Jury | Composed of artisans, bird-catchers, and laborers. |
| Power | Could acquit defendants even against "State" interests. |
| Identity | Representatives were chosen based on their craft/guild. |
| Legacy | Forerunner to the idea of "Common Law" and public trial. |
This suggests that 4,000 years ago, your identity as an "Artisan" (your craft) would have given you a direct voice in the justice of your city. Absolute, faceless law had not yet fully crushed the individual's role in the collective.
Okej, det här ju oväntat. Fast jag kanske inte borde säga något, LOL. Med tanke på mina egna halsbrytande U-svängar...
It seems I´m not a fascist after all. So I took the test linked below and became "Mostly Liberal", since I agreed with 29 of 39 statements. Note that the test was devised by none other than the Devil himself (James Burnham) in 1964! Clearly, something´s wrong with the questions, I mean, come on...
Overheard on the interwebs: "Islam is a political ideology masquerading as a religion. Communism is a religion masquerading as a political ideology." Not entirely accurate, in my estimation.
Both are religions. :P
Liberalerna har så extremt låga opinionssiffror att de kanske överväger att bryta svensk politiks största tabu. Just det: valkartellen. Jag tror att senaste gången det hände var när KDS ingick en kartell med Centerpartiet någon gång på 1980-talet. Vilket fick Olof Palme att gå i taket och tala om grundlagsbrott! Fast KDS var ju ett parti fast förankrat utanför riksdagen. Liberalerna är ett riksdagsparti...
Men visst, det är inte olagligt. Och även 1.4% av rösterna kan avgöra valet. Så om Liberalerna väljer att ta steget, finns det minst ett annat parti som "borde" göra det. Just det: Centern. Problemet är att Centern saknar naturliga allierade och dessutom är alldeles för arroganta för att ingå en kartell med någon.
Fast de skulle ju kunna testa med Liberalerna...
:P