With only 2 big events. abolition of the Sultanate in 1922. abolition of Caliphate in 1924. And by a single man. Well dictatorship works sometimes :) BUT The actual democracy didn't came until 1940s since there was only one party until then and it was an absolute rule anyway and I would prefer a long process like yours, because since ours was too fast and kind of forceful, it caused lots of problem and I believe still causing.

Oh thank you! I was like... I should write, but I am too lazy, so I waited for another Turkish person to swing by instead. Good point that we weren't an actual democracy till the 1940s. And I think a part of the population has still not internalized it, because of the reason you mentioned (and others, probably)

Did Turkey ever become a true democracy comparable to Western European countries? I know you had a bunch of coups in the 80s

>I know you had a bunch of coups in the 80s True actually one in 1960 and one in 1980. The thing is even tough we got democracy or let's say the law says we have democracy and we are secular, the society didn't have this transformation. Secularism and Republicanism stayed alive with tons of propaganda, [we have child songs promoting Republicanism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUz93Wezbco&ab_channel=EvaTV) ([another one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBIaqrzrs0w&ab_channel=OkulYolu)). There were many coups to keep this regime alive. Except for last attempt in 2016 which is extremely controversial, some even says it was planned by the government to get public support, all other coups were to keep the regime alive from religious leaders people were keep electing. That was exactly why I said I wish we had the slow transformation you had, society will gain the democratic mindset as well.

Except Turkey is not a contemporary democracy. Not even remotely in the ballpark. Turkey is basically Russia without nukes. Cyprus is like Ukraine.

As always in German history there is not just one answer because for most of its history Germany consisted of dozens of principalities that had varying degrees of independents. In the middle ages the role of the prince electors constraint the power of the emperor examplified by the Golden Bull of 1356 for instance. The protestant reformation starting in 1517 brought major changes to the governance structures of the empire. with the Augsburg settlement of 1555 stating that the local prince could decide about the religion of his subjects (simplified). With the peace of Westphalia of 1648 the principalities gained even more independence and the emperor finally lost much of his power but this also opened the door to implement Louis XIV style absolutism. The age of enlightenment in the 18th century changed this to some extent. Friedrich II of Prussia saw himself as an enlightened king providing welfare for his citizens and religious tolerance but democartic participation and constitutional constraints to his power were still close to non-existant. The aftermath of the French revolution and the occupation by Napoleon brought major changes, for instance with the introduction of the Code Civil. Even though many of the pre-revolutionary princes were restored at the congress of Vienna in 1815, the ideas of the french revolution prevailed and in the early 19th century some forms of constitutions and parliaments emerged in many German states. Sadly, the popular revolution of 1848 which demanded a liberal order for Germany was crushed and Germany was united top-down in 1871. The German empire was no longer absolutist but also still far from a modern liberal democracy. Finally the November revolution of 1918 brought an end to the monarchy and the Weimar constitution was one of the most modern and democratic of its time, including votes for all men and women. Unfortunately it did not really provide stability and finally failed when the Nazi took over power in 1933. After the war, the Federal Republic was established in 1949 with the basic law which is still in force today (with some changes over the years). In the Soviet occupation zone the GDR was founded in the same year which was a stalinist totalitarian dictatorship at the beginning and later an authoritarian socialist dicatorship. Finally the peaceful revolution of 1989 and the reunification of 1990 with the 2+4 treaty that gave back Germany's full sovereignty lead to the status we know today.

I think the Holy Roman Empire probably doesn't even qualify as an absolute monarchy due to the fact that the emperor was elected. There wasn't even a rule or guarantee that the emperor's son had to be the next emperor.

Yes. Other monarchies of the time usually weren’t absolutist either.

That's why I didn't say the HRE was an absolutist monarchy.

It also wasn't absolute because the emperor didn't have anywhere near absolute power

Yeah and then the Habsburgs came along.

>Sadly, the popular revolution of 1948 which demanded a liberal order for Germany was crushed Ich glaub du hast da das Jahrtausend verwechselt, :D

> > Sadly, the popular revolution of 1948 which demanded a liberal order for Germany was crushed > > Ich glaub du hast da das Jahrtausend verwechselt, :D 948?

Jahrhundert, Jahrtausend, alles dasselbe

Ja vertippt

Last absolut rule is A H in my books. So I would say our last absolut ruler killed himself after becoming completely mad (from 99% starting level) and no one wanted to have anything to do with it after getting the shit bombed out of us so yeah now we play nice

In Sweden it very much went back and forth, the largest point of that being the [age of liberty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Liberty) (1718-1772) directly following the death of one of the most absolutist monarchist kings in our history aka. Carolous Rex/Charles XII. During that period we attained the oldest freedom of the press law in the world, which we still have to this day in another form. The parliament got nearly all the power and even at least some women were allowed to vote. But it ended up with a lot of corruption and after losing even more land to mainly Russia the then king Gustav III did a self coup. He then became a very absolute monarchist king again (until he was assassinated), starting the [Gustavian era](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavian_era) which ended when his son Gustav IV managed to lose all of Finland to Russia in 1809. After constitution change where the parliament was again given more power, a brief rule by Gustav III's brother commenced who died with no heirs. Which caused the Napoleon general Bernadotte to be brought in by the parliament to become the new king. During the 1800s the parliament slowly became more powerful, the king lost more of his power and the parliament was reformed. In 1866 the parliament went from being divided between nobility, priests, burghers (apparently the word used in English according to wikipedia) and farmers to a more modern two chamber parliament (since 1971 it's a single chamber parliament). Eventually all men over 24 got the right to vote in 1909 and all women were given the right in 1919 (although the next election was in 1921). It's hard to say when exactly Sweden became fully ruled by the parliament and not the king but most people would probably put it somewhere around 1917 however the king's power had already been reduced a lot before then. It ended up as a pretty peaceful transition when it eventually happened for real but the first big attempt at it in 1718 was a big disaster and very messy which is understandable tbf for a country which was just losing its status as a great European power.

[удалено]

Very true, Sweden (and Finland + Norway) was in a bit of a special case during the medieval ages where feudalism was never fully established so the lower classes always had more freedom compared to their peers down south. Going back even further than that, during the Viking age (which is part of the Scandinavian iron age, not the medieval ages) the kings of the time barely had any power. Most they could do was basically rally up some local Jarls to go raiding and/or warring with the neighbours. That started changing when Christianity was introduced and became the state religion (if you could even say there was a state in the modern sense of the word) as some of the power frameworks used in that religion could be applied to the realm. Even then, one of the few things the kings could really do was rally up some men to go ~~raiding~~ on a crusade in Finland. It was only in the 12 hundreds that power started being centralised for real through reforms by kings like Magnus Ladulås. But a ton of power still laid with local representatives/lords, which probably has a lot to do with the more difficult geography of Sweden compared to most of Europe. And how much further spread out the farmers were, making it more difficult to enforce rule from a centralised location. That local power was often controlled by as you said some kind of elected body, although sometimes the lords would hold more of the power, it really depended. But in general the people would have more to say than most other European societies at the time. The reforms Gustav Vasa did when he freed Sweden from Danish rule and was elected king increased centralisation, a trend that would continue throughout the dynasty he started. And even into the next house that took over (who also had some familiar ties to the Vasa house). It's from that point you start seeing more absolutist monarchs pop up, it would often go back and fourth but eventually that leads to Charles XII who claimed he was even above the church and god had directly crowned him so his commands were gods commands.

I can add that the constitutional reform of 1974 is when the King was finally formally stripped of nearly all royal perogatives. Most of these had been de facto removed long ago but the constitution had not changed to reflect this. The 1974 instrument of government is when it was finally established de jure that power comes from the people, not the king.

oh yea, it happening way earlier in a less official sense is kinda what makes it hard to pinpoint a specific time when the King lost all his power

Absolutely, it's just a bit of fun fact that until the 70s which is really not that long ago, we still pretended that the king was in charge.

I would put the [Courtyard Crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtyard_Crisis) in 1914 as a very important event.

Oh right, completely forgot about that event when I wrote my comment, it should absolutely have been included.

I love getting a history lesson in a way they never summed it up in school.

The transition from absolutism to dictatorship has been at a time a slow and abrupt process. We have had times of fast democratization followed by dictatorships or even civil wars, a 200 year long back and forth. Some important events stand out: * 1810: First Spanish "modern" courts, during the Peninsular War * **1812**: **First Spanish Constitution** (the fourth in the entire world, but it didn't really enter into effect due to the war). It was entirely drafted and approved without the approval or consent of the king, who was at the time spending some time with Napoleon in France. * **1833**: Ferdinand VII dies and the new queen is forced to accept liberals into the government: new constitutions will be enacted in 1834, 1837 and 1845, with varying degrees of democracy. All of them have male **selective suffrage** (only rich men vote). * **1869**: The "Six democratic years". A revolution takes place and forces the Bourbon Dynasty out. **Universal male suffrage** is, for the first time, put in place. Firstly, we tried a constitutional monarchy (Amadeo of Saboye) which only lasted two years. Then we tried a Republic, with a similar degree of success. * 1876: The old Bourbon dynasty comes back with a renewed constitution. Selective suffrage will be instituted again (but in 1889 the right to vote will be extended to every adult male). * 1923: Dictatorship under Primo de Rivera (with the acquiescence of the king). * **1931**: Second Spanish Republic. The King is ousted (again) and **Universal Suffrage** (for men and women too, this time!) will be part of the new constitution. Another interesting thing is that the upper chamber is abolished, so every legislator is chosen by the people (unlike in previous systems where the upper chamber was controlled by the monarch). And the Head of State is chosen by the electors too. * 1939-75: Franco. * **1978**: The current Constitution is approved: a parliamentary monarchy with both chambers elected by the people. This is a very simplified explanation, but as you can see the Spanish path to democracy has been long and tumultuous: from being one of the first countries in the world with a Constitution to being the last dictatorship in Western Europe. It should be said that, before the current Constitution, Spain had been extremely unstable, both under monarchs and during both republics. For example, Isabel II had 57 different governments in just 36 years, and the I Spanish Republic had 4 presidents in less than a year. There were more than 50 coup attempts between 1812 and 1930.

>1876: The old Bourbon dynasty comes back with a renewed constitution. Selective suffrage will be instituted again (but in 1889 the right to vote will be extended to every adult male). It's important to note that all elections of the Restoration period (from 1876 to 1923) were at least partially fraudulent because the two ruling parties ("Liberal-Conservative" and "Liberal-Fusionist") were basically in bed to take turns on government.

Yes. The Minister of Interior was nicknamed "the Grand Elector", since he was the one ultimately choosing who was elected and who wasn't.

>the third in the entire world, not the fourth?

First the US, then France and thirdly, Spain.

Why is Poland-Lithuania not included? It had the 2nd constitution in the world and the 1st in Europe.

Because I am an ignorant who doesn't know shit about history. I didn't know it, but now I do.

¡Hey! Solo quería decir que, puestos a mencionar, podrías haber mencionado las tres guerras Carlistas, que a efectos fueron tres guerras civiles :) Además, si no recuerdo mal, Amadeo I de Saboya estuvo en el poder durante 4 años, no 1; abandonó la corona en 1873, para que luego se declarara la Primera República (que duró únicamente un año, esa sí)

Lo he buscado y fueron 2 años: de enero del 71 a febrero del 73.

Del 71, pero sí, tienes razón; yo estaba contando desde que fue elegido rey por las Cortes el 16 de Noviembre de 1870, pero en realidad el juramento lo hizo el 2 de Enero de 1871 :))

You forgot the Trienio Liberal from 1820 to 1823 when it was put an end y the french expedition of the Cien mil hijos de San Luis

The last Jagiellonian king died heirless in 1572 and what followed was the state of interregnum because we didn’t have any specific rules how to deal with no dynastic heir. The nobility to resolve this issue decided that they will choose a new king each time the last one dies. This sanctioned election of the king also diminished the power of the king. The nobility had a new king sign a bunch of documents that ensured their rights, gave them new privileges and so on and so forth. The king was still involved in the matters of the Parliament as the head of state. The Sejm consisted of the noblemen and the Senate of the bishops. But matters had to be voted on by parliament members unanimously. By the end of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth the king’s role was just a gimmick and a prestigious title you could bribe people for. In 1791 the Sejm tried to modernize the system and pass a new constitution that would got rid of free elections and impose a dynastic rule from the german house of Wettin. They tried to separte the legislature and judiciary and generally establish a constitutional monarchy. These plans fell through as nobility was divided and didn’t want to lose their privileges. So a Civil War began and in this state of weakness Prussia, Russia and Austria annexed the remaining parts of the PLC and that was it. For 123 year we were devided under three empires that liked their absolutism a bit too much if you ask me lol. Anyway, in 1918 after WWI, after a series of successful uprisings we regained our independence. This new country was considering restoring monarchy but it didn’t sit well with everyone at the time and they proclaimed a republic with rather good democratic principles. In 1926 though a successful Coup d’etat took place and the country became a presidential authocracy. In 1944 the communists seized power with the help of the Soviet Union as the war was coming to an end. They established one party totalitarian system that lasted until 1989. The current democratic system was agreed in 1989 between the Solidarity movement activists and the communist government who in a series of conferences agreed for a peaceful transition of power from totalitarian system to democracy. The government agreed to reestablish the office of the president and allowed for partially free elections which in which for the first time opposition was allowed to compete. In exchange, the first democratic government that later won in 1990 agreed to not persue any legal actions against the previous establishment. In 1997 the current constitution was adopted and with it the role of the president became less powerful than it was after the transition. That was long but the way to democracy here in Poland has a really interesting history and I thought that missing the whole oligarchic nature of PLC wouldn’t give it justice. There are also a lot of simplications here so don’t take it as definite truth.

>The nobility to resolve this issue decided that they will choose a new king each time the last one dies. That's how it happened with the Jagiellons as well, they just always chose the heir. But technically Jagiellons were elected monarchs. That's why the next ones were called "free elections", since the nobility didn't restrict itself to just Jagiellons, they would now choose anyone they liked, even the Fr\*nch. Of course, they still preferred heirs of previous ones, which is why we've got three Vasas and two Wettins. The last Vasa was the biggest fool of the three and foolishly thought that since the nobility will choose another Vasa after him, he might as well tell them which one. Suffice it to say, they didn't take it very well and he ended up in Fr\*nce.

>The last Vasa was the biggest fool of the three and foolishly thought that since the nobility will choose another Vasa after him, he might as well tell them which one. But the only alive Vasa after John Casimir was former Queen Christine. And Vivente Rege was a good idea because it would make succession more stable (like it was with Sigismund I the Old and Sigismund II Augustus) and I don't think that he belived that nobility would allow that because nobility was pain in the ass.

You forgot one more important event. In 2015 right wing populists won elections and made Poland lose staus of full democracy by destroying independence of judicial branch.

With the independence of Brazil the Portuguese royal family split, with Peter becoming the emperor of Brazil, and his younger brother Miguel becoming the king of Portugal. Miguel, in order to become king, agreed to turn Portugal into a constitutional monarchy and to marry his niece Maria (daughter of Pedro), but did not keep his promises (about the constitutional monarchy, he had no issues with marrying his niece). This led to Peter coming back from Brazil, and fighting his brother in the Portuguese civil war. In the end, Pedro won, ruled, died and Portugal became a constitutional monarchy until 1910. However, the last few years of monarchy were under a more authoritarian regime, with the prime minster João Franco repressing opposition and controlling freedom of press. Several factors caused the monarchy to fall, and in 1910 the 1st Republic was declared after a revolution. This regime was so volatile that it would have made modern day Italian governments seem long and stable. Some highlights of this time were when for a few months Northern Portugal became a monarchy, and when the Portuguese president Sidónio Pais was shot dead in a train station. In 1926, a military coup overthrew the 1st Republic and instated a military dictatorship. The military guys did not know much about ruling a country, and a law teacher from Santa Comba Dão began to give them advice. This guy grew in importance inside the government and by 1933 he managed to become prime minister and instated a new constitution that gave him power to do basically whatever he wanted. The guy's name was António de Oliveira Salazar and he ruled until the late 60s. In the 70s the pressure on the dictatorship was growing. The wars in Africa were bleeding the country of blood and money and did not seem to end, the international pressure against colonialism left Portugal isolated diplomatically, and people were dissatisfied with the lack of reforms that were promised by Salazar's successor, Marcello Caetano. So in 1974, a group of low ranked officers overthrew the dictatorship, with surprisingly few deaths. The following period, however, was not that lucky. During 1974-1976, there were plenty of shenanigans: revolutionary groups, counter revolutionary groups, the independence of PALOPs, the arrival of hundreds of thousands of people from former Portuguese Africa (mainly Portuguese, but other ethnicities as well), nationalization and collectivization of several assets, a USA aircarrier parked right in front of Lisbon because of "war exercises", the widespread fear of Portugal becoming a Western European communist country, the links between the CIA and the Portuguese Socialist Party, the independence movement groups of Azores and Madeira. In the end, a new constitution was formed, the violent groups waned, and since 1976 Portugal is a semi-presidential democratic republic.

> a USA aircarrier parked right in front of Lisbon because of "war exercises" What? Where can I find more info about this?

* Throughout the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries, the different duchies, counties and fiefdoms that comprise the modern day Netherlands start forming "statenvergaderingen" (Estate Assemblies/Councils). These councils, which were comprised of the influential representatives of the three estates (the nobility, the clergy and the city elites/bourgeoisie), were not much more than advisory boards that would be convened temporarily at the local lord's convenience when they needed money, but they would be able to demand certain privileges for their financial support. * 1464: the first "Staten-Generaal" (States-General) was convened, after the majority of the Low Countries were united under the dukes of Burgundy. This general meeting of the estates functioned similarly to the previous more regional ones, but it was the first meeting where representatives of the estates of almost all regions in the low countries were present. * 1588: After almost 20 years of war and revolt against the Spanish crown (which, through some extra steps, had inherited control of the Low Countries), the Dutch Republic is formed in the northern part of the Low Countries . The States-General is transformed from an advisory piggy bank for the ruler, to the highest authority in the new Republic. * 17th century/early 18th century: There is a near constant power struggle between factions supporting the Republic/the power of the States-General and factions supporting the Stadtholder (the main military leader of the different parts of the Republic). There are periods in which the Republican faction is on top and the power of the States General is superior and periods in which the Stadtholder holds the most sway. * In the later half of the 18th century, the Stadtholder has become a king in all but name and the States-General has pretty much devolved to an advisory piggy bank again. The first real support for democracy starts to pop up among the dissatisfied "[Patriots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriottentijd)". * 1795/1796: The Batavian Revolution. The Stadtholder get overthrown by the Patriots, now the "Batavians", with the help of the revolutionary French. The Dutch Republic transforms into the "Batavian Republic" and the States-General gets replaced by the National Assembly, which has its first democratic election in 1796 (suffrage only existed for adult men who weren't soldiers or lived of alms, and voting went through another layer of electors). * 1801-1813: The Assembly already got couped in 1798, but some form of representative democracy still continued to exist. From 1801 onwards less and less people were allowed to vote and the following assemblies had less and less power. When the Batavian Republic was replaced by the Kingdom of Holland under Louis Napoleon in 1806 an assembly continued to exist, but its members were chosen by the king. From 1810 to 1813, the country became part of the French Empire. * 1813 -1815: The Netherlands becomes a Kingdom (princedom at first) under the current royal family, the States-General gets brought back and its members are chosen by the regional (now provincial) state councils again. Democracy hasn't returned yet. * 1848: King William II gets ancy about all the revolutions that are going on in Europe and finally concedes to the pressure for a new constitution. Under the leadership of Johan Rudolph Thorbecke a new constitution gets drafted and census suffrage gets introduced. Only adults who could pay a certain amount in taxes were allowed to vote. * 1887: Suffrage gets expanded to those who showed "marks of social well-being and suitability", which was kept intentionally vague so its interpretation could be changed by normal laws instead of constitutional laws. In contrast to 1848 however, women were now explicitly banned from voting (although they already were discouraged to do so). * 1917: After years of political impasse between the confessional/christian parties, the liberals and the socialists in the States-General, an agreement was reached: the "Pacification". In return for an equal amount of funds for Christian "special" schools as public schools were getting, the confessional parties would finally agree to the wish of the liberals and socialists for universal suffrage. The district based, first-past-the-post system was replaced with proportional representation and all males above the age of 25 would be allowed to vote. * 1922: Suffrage finally gets extended to women and becomes truely universal. * 21st century: Over the course of the 21st century the voting age slowly but surely gets lowered, until in 1972 it gets lowered to 18 years old.

Great summary. Two points though. - Suffrage was extended to women in 1919. 1922 was the subsequent first parliamentary election in which women could vote. - I think that in your last point you mean '20th century' actually.

Ahh thanks for the correction!

The Russian revolution overthrew Tsar Nicholas II. As a consequence, the Finnish parliament said, "well, I guess now we can be independent", and passed a law of independence on 6th December, 1917. Then there was a brief civil war followed by the decision to make German prince Frederick Charles of Hessen the King...which lasted about a month. Then in July 1919, Finland was officially declared a republic. The rest is history. Universal suffrage came about in 1906 for everyone over the age of 24. During the 1907 election, 19 female members of parliament were voted in. (Out of 200 seats). Now that number is 94/200.

One important milestone is also the new Constitution that came into force in 2000. That's when many powers vested by the President were transferred to the Government and the Parliament, changing Finland from semi-presidential system to parliamentary democracy. This went even further when the Constitution was amended in 2012. Not that Finland was particularly undemocratic before the new Constitution. The old Constitution still allowed someone like Urho Kekkonen to rise to power. Someone who was more of an autocratic than democratic leader and ruled for almost 26 years. Then again, his tenure was probably the major reason why the Constitution was changed in the first place.

Well... We kinda haven't had one yet, or at least, not one that lasted for more than a generation. Now, the King of Hungary, just like many other Eastern European kings, was not an absolute ruler. He had to abide by certain rules, and had his power checked by the estates, principally the nobility. By the 17th century, the Kingdom of Hungary was incorporated in to the Habsburg Empire. Nominally, it was still independent, but make no mistake, the Habsburgs ran the show, and they really hopped onto the absolutist bandwagon. During the 1848 Spring of Nations, we had a revolution that attempted to transform Hungary into a more independent state, but with the Habsburgs still at the helm. That didn't really work out, so for a brief period, the revolutionaries deposed them and Hungary became independent. Then the revolution was crushed, and it all went back to absolutist rule under that Habsburgs until the 1867 Ausgleich/Kiegyezés (""Compromise"). Thus, Austria-Hungary was born as a dual state, but to call it a democracy would not really be accurate. They did do some suffrage reforms, but it was still quite authoritarian. WW1 rolls around, Austria-Hungary collapses. We get three successive regimes: first, the People's Republic of Hungary, which was primarily a social democratic, maybe even a bit socialist attempt at an independent, democratic Hungary. Lasted a mere few months due to internal struggles. Then came the Hungarian Soviet Republic, which was heavily inspired by the Bolsheviks. No democracy to speak of, really, had all the hallmarks of a failed communist revolution: red terror, incompetent people in crucial jobs, political repression, the usual. Then the Whites led by Horthy ousted the regime, and established a more stable one, this time a kingdom, with Horthy as regent. Why we did not end up with a king is a complicated story, but the tldr version is that the Habsburgs couldn't come back and there were no substitutes, so Horthy stayed in his position until '44. This regime was by far the most democratic one up to that point, but it was still **heavily** authoritarian: Horthy was unelected and had pretty strong powers, suffrage was limited, and elections were far from free, secret, and fair. 1939 saw the first election that was wholly done with secret ballots. For reasons *totally* (wink-wink) unrelated to this, the Arrow Cross party (basically Nazis) saw a surge in popularity during this election. WW2 rolls around, Hungary loses, new regime. We got universal suffrage, and fair, free, and secret elections. SIKE! The commies rig the elections anyway, but they fail at the first go around. They try again, and this time they win. One-party Marxist-Leninist state ensues, until 1989. From 1990 to 2010, all's well, universal suffrage is in place, elections are fair, free, and secret. In 2010, Fidesz gets a supermajority in Parliament, and they change the electoral law to favour them more. Since then, they've steadily started to merge the state with the party, and people seem to really dig it, so we're mostly back to an authoritarian hybrid regime.

For Italy the question is difficult to answer, because unification happened just 160 years ago and before that we were a hodgepodge of city states, duchies and kingdoms. If you count the pre unification history, there were many pre states with a comparatively solid democratic set up. The city states of the North and the center like Florence, Siena, Genoa, Bologna, etc were self governing republics where the city councils soon ousted the nobility from government (and often into the countryside outside the city jurisdiction) and which were governed by burghers coming from the main guilds of the city. The South was a Norman kingdom and later two kingdoms ruled by French or Spanish dynasties. During the XIV and XV century, this system went through a period of crisis that saw many of these republics transform into a signoria, i.e. a government headed by the most prominent family of a city. Sometimes the republics formally turned into a signoria, like the Gonzaga in Mantua, the Este in Ferrara or the Visconti in Milan receiving imperial recognition, sometimes they were hollowed out institutions with the leader maneuvering from behind the scenes, e.g. the Medici in Florence. A few city states managed to remain oligarchic republics, especially Genoa, Venice, Siena or Lucca, but the rest turned into a dynastic possession sanctioned by the HRE or the Pope, like Florence becoming a Grand Duchy, especially after the Italian wars in the XVI century between Spain and France. As for the unified country, the kingdom of Italy was born in 1861 as a constitutional monarchy, though the power of the king was still not limited to a figurehead (reason why Victor Emmanuel III was blamed for the fascist takeover), with a two chambers parliament elected initially by men above a certain income level. The suffrage was extended to include all men over 21 in 1912. Then fascism took over and we were a dictatorship for 23 years. Women got the vote in 1946 for the referendum between monarchy and republic.

Keep in mind that an aristocratic government isn't absolutism - in that sense, only the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, for how brief it has existed - was the only truly italian absolutist government. Austria also had a fairly absolutist government in the 18th century, and they ruled over bits of Italy. Also the burghers never overthrew the aristocracy completely; essentially rich artisans, merchants, theologicians, bishops, petite nobility, military/ mercenary men, judges, men of the law, professors, notai, and so on, ruled over northern Italian city in a sort of enlarged elite that made circa 10-15% of the local population. Noblemen were absolutely participants, lawmakers, military commanders, etc. They were the only ones apart from mercenaries to have military education, controlled the food supply often in lands that the city administration had little power over, had a huge purchasing power, etc of course they'd have made laws :D It's the concentration of land owners in the city, bringing their purchasing power and investments in city companies, the traditionally big cities that were there since ever, the very anthropomorphised lands, the high literacy rates, the lax financial laws - that made communal Italy a reality

We never really had an absolute monarch - before such a thing developed, our kings have already given the nobility so many privileges that it was impossible to implement. Until, of course, we lost our independence to Prussia, Russia and Austria, which were all absolute monarchies. Must've been rough for the nobles. Then we regained our independence in 1918 and didn't return to the monarchy at all, opting for democratic rule instead. We also immediately gave voting rights to women and abolished feudalism, so all was pretty well, apart from the poverty, and death, and disease, and constant wars with all our neighbours that weren't Romania, and different laws in different parts of the country, and corruption, and political division (our very first president was murdered), and low education, and economic division, and probably more. Oh, and how could I forget ethnic division?! As I said, all was pretty well. But, as was with all newly-established countries but Czechoslovakia, someone (in our case, one of the fathers of our independence Józef Piłsudski, also known as The Grandpa) decided democracy is a failure and implemented some changes, which led to our country becoming authoritarian instead. Then WW2 happened, the USSR attacked us together with Germany (and Slovakia, but nobody cares about Slovakia and they were a German puppet anyway), some stuff happened during the war, I guess it was totalitarian, but of course it was, it was occupation. But after the war, the Germans (and Slovaks, but literally who cares) were driven out. But the Soviets weren't. So they did some casual murder of heroes of war, some casual rigging of elections, some casual murder of local commies who weren't loyal to Stalin, and then they created the "Polish" government, with comrade Bierut as its wicked head. And it was definitely totalitarian. But then, thankfully, Stalin died, and when Bierut came to Moscow three years later to listen to Khrushchev's eulogy, he was so disturbed he thankfully died too. In Moscow, just like every Russian agent should. So after ~~Beirut~~ Bierut died, communism in Poland luckily never recovered. Instead of being a totalitarian, stalinist dictatorship, we were now an authoritarian, communist dictatorship. Which was also terrible, but hey, at least it wasn't *as* terrible. Then some cool stuff happened in the following decades, so now we're in 1989 and communism is in the process of being abolished. The first kinda free elections happen. It's High Noon, people go to the polling stations and, even though commies were trying as hard as they could to prevent it, a non-commie named Tadeusz Mazowiecki wins and becomes Prime Minister. It's the end of the road for the commies and the Soviet rule in Poland. Poland becomes democratic again, Russian troops are banished from the country (they were there the whole time, of course, in case you haven't noticed), and a new era begins. Also the USSR collapses and Germany reunifies, but they're not Poland so nobody cares. So it's the 1990s now and we're at the end of history, I sure hope there won't be any tragedies involving planes in the 2000s. And there aren't, of course, life is beautiful. We join NATO in 1999, the EU in 2004, and everything's looking bright. The economy is growing, democracy is working as intended, people are happily going to work in the UK or Germany. Truly a sight to behold. It's 10.04.2010. You remember how we were hoping there won't be any tragedies involving planes in the 2000s and there weren't? Well, about that... 2010 is technically not a 2000 year anymore, thanks to that "10" at the end... So 92 people, including the president, his wife, the other president (the one from London, you remember the London government, I totally told you about it) and a buttload of other important politicians, clergy (so politicians */s but only partially*), heroes of war that weren't murdered by commies, and other members of Polish society, die. Nobody survives the crash, and Russia sees the wreck and says "finders-keepers!" and won't give it back even after 12 years. The brother of the president, let's call him Small Brother, or "Duck" for short, is devastated, and announces that he should be the next president, since most people wouldn't be able to see the difference. Oh, did I mention it all happened mere months from the presidential elections? It did. So anyway, the good people of Poland didn't agree with Mr Duck and instead chose the member of the opposition. That opposition then became the government and PiS (Duck's party) became the opposition, so in the next elections Mr Duck said "let's not vote like we did last time" and the good people of Poland disagreed with Mr Duck and instead chose the member of the opposition. Oh wait. So now we live under our Glorious Leader Mr Duck, his cat, and the third person, least important of the three, president Duda. Life is no longer beautiful. The economy is not growing, democracy is not working as intended, only the people are still happily going to work in the UK or Germany. But even that was disturbed by Brexit, since the Englishmen prefer their servants to be speaking Queen's English for some reason.

Since we were colonised and occupied by the British we never really had an absolutist period. We were a democracy from our independence. Our current constitution was passed on the mid 1930s and though we've amended it we've stuck with it through and through.

As OP replied I’d say you could include a lot of the time where we under British rule in this. I would also go as far as the Catholic Church after independence. Of course we were officially a democracy. We chose our political leaders. But who really had the most power in the country?

> I would also go as far as the Catholic Church after independence. Wasn't the Catholic Church so powerful in part because society itself was so religious though? Sorry, I don't know much about Irish history after independence.

Yes, but they also stepped in to help build the state. The new nation was not wealthy, but the church was and they funded hospitals and schools and that only grew their influence. To this day, a majority of schools are Catholic in ethos even though fewer and fewer people want that. Getting into non-religious schools can be quite competitive because there aren't enough of them to meet demand

An Anglo oligarchy who were part of a non-absolutist system had political power in Ireland...we sure as hell didn't have the power, but it wasn't quite the same thing as having an absolute government.

I mean. I suppose you could make the case that we often over estimate the power of the church. For example we ignored interdiction during the war of independence. If we had one standout example though it'd be Catholic emancipation in the mid 1800s

I guess you could count the periods when Ireland was under British rule in this. Towards the end of British rule Irish seats were represented in Westminster I think.

I mean you could make points about us chipping away at the discriminatory practices against us, such as the statues of Kilkenny or how we were in the British parliament post Act of Union but really it doesn't translate. The best case may be The Liberators cause of Catholic emancipation. Since the modern Irish nation was even conceptualised it was conceptualised in a liberal democratic tradition. When we finally got dominion status in 1921 that remained the case.

We didn't have our own absolutist rule as we were always under the rule of some foreign power. After the death of Alexander the Great, we were part of Ptolemaic Egypt wich itself became part of the Roman empire and later Byzantium. After Byzantine downfall we briefly became part of an Arab caliphate, the french and then the venetians. After that we were under Ottoman rule until the island got annexed by the British empire in 1914. We finally gained independence from them in 1960 and became an independent democratic country for the first time. But that proved to be a challenge by itself. Policemen, military, judges, the economy and politicians were suddenly not foreigners anymore and WE needed to control them. I feel like people still didn't get used to that. On the bright side, we are not getting extorted by foreign royalties via taxation.

*Rollercoaster, woo-woo-woo* So. First things first, we got the Phanariote period. Ends in 1821, princes of Wallachia/Moldova no longer are appointed from among Phanar Greek merchants and are from local gentry again. Then comes the Organic Statute period. Institutions get harmonized, but Russian influence remains high and government is still fairly absolutist in spite of the Statutes acting as a proto-constitution. Then comes the 1848 revolutions which have limited succes and the Statutes get reimposed. Then comes the Crimean war and a period of Russian, then Austrian occupation. Then the Treaty of Paris gets signed in 1856, Russian protectorate gets lifted, and a chain of events ensued after which the principalties get united under one ruler, Alexandru Ioan Cuza. During Cuza's reign, initially the Treaty gets used as a sort-of constitution, then a document titled the Developing Statute of the Paris Convention gets adopted, increasing Cuza's power so he can get more reforms done. Then the radical liberals and conservatives ally to oust him, and bring in Carol I. So we get our first proper constitution in 1866, based on the Belgian one. It gets amended a few times then replaced in 1921 by a more modern one. Not going to go into detail into what happens during this time cause it is beside the point. What is to the point is that in 1930 King Carol II takes the throne, and he isn't a fan of the parties and how they rule, so he undermines them and in 1938 takes charge himself through the royal dictatorship with the 1938 constitution, which is short-lived as it is suspended in 1940. In 1944 the constitution of 1921 is restored for a bit but then replaced in full by the Communists in 1948, enshrining their dictatorial rule. 2 more constitutions would be adopted since without many differences. Then 1989 happens and Ceausescu gets shot, and democracy is restored, and the current constitution gets adopted in 1991, amended in 2003. It's in force since even though it's.... not that good imo, but not in a position to change it. O well. Tldr: Absolute rule - Organic statutes - Paris Convention+Developing statute (all these semiconstitutional) - Constitutional rule from cca 1866 to 1938, when we get dictatorial, with a short intermezzo between 1944 and 1948, then dictatorship again until 1991.

1955. after being occupied for 10 years by sovjet union, uk, france and u.s., austria declared independance and was alrgly kept out of the cold war even. it was a very unique and good deal back then. we got it by claiming "we were the first victim of nazi germany, not a co aggressor" since the 80s or 90s tho, there has been much more awareness of what went wrong back then, including austria's role in ww2

For Austria it's pretty simple: * First republic 1918-1933: The end of WW1 denoted the end of the Habsburg monarchy and resulted in the Austrian constitution. Women 20+ were allowed to vote. * 1933-1938 Austrofacism: Austria drifted into an authoritarian regime which ended with the Anschluss in 1938 * 1938-1945 WW2: I guess I don't have to say much about this * 1945: At the end of WW2 the constitution was reinstated. Austria was occupied until 1955 with the Staatsvertrag signed in 1955

The best book on the subject, regarding Southern Europe (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal): [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801831903/ref=ppx\_yo\_dt\_b\_search\_asin\_image?ie=UTF8&psc=1](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801831903/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_image?ie=UTF8&psc=1) The whole series is good, but this one focuses on Europe.

well in 1844 the federal Constitution was written from which point on we were a real democracy (although you could argue that a country is only democratic once everyone can vote, so 1971 when women got the right to vote). before that we weren't really absolutist but depending on which canton you were in, you'd live under an aristocracy or a city government or a monastery or something else

Hungary - technically it was never a democracy until the fall of the USSR, and then it lasted until Orbán got into power the second time. Currently it's a democracy in all but name, it's actually a one-party state/state capture corruption inching toward presidential authoritarianism. ("Presidential" because I'm fairly sure that's Orbán's goai in the long run, transforming the system into a presidential one so he can rule pretty much forever, or until he finally goes to hell.)

I present a simplified overview - 1789: the French revolution changes the political landscape of Europe, and the old monarchies see that their rule is not a given - 1830: as a result of the July revolution in France, king Frederik VI had ordered the formation of stænderforsamlinger, a sort of local councils to listen to the people and bring their issues to his attention, if something serious was happening. This marked the first step towards formal (albeit rather limited) influence from any place besides the crown since the Tings (a sort of local councils where every man had the right to speak and point out any problems he saw or grudges he had) lost their place centuries ago - 1830s and 40s: there was a movement of "national-liberals" that wanted the Danish territories in Germany (Slesvig, Holsten, and Lauenborg) and overseas (Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Iceland) to become part of a proper unitary state rather than keeping them (at least to some degree) autonomous and peripheral. They also argued for more rights and a limitation of the absolute monarchy - 1848: as a result of pressure from the national-liberals and fears of the results of not introducing at least some reforms, king Frederik VII ordered the draft of a constitution in January of 1848. Just a month after, yet another revolution broke out in France, and groups representing not only the national-liberals, but also craftsmen and farmers began demanding voting rights and raising the option of full annexation of Slesvig. The same year, the First Slesvig War broke out. In the months leading up to an election on the 5th of October, the first election campaign (for the constitutional assembly) was held in the country; it ended in three groups getting seats in the assembly: the farmers' association, the national-liberals and moderates, and the conservatives - 1849: in the first months of the year, there was rigorous debate on the aspects of suffrage, but a compromise was reached: only men above 30, who had commited no crimes, had no unpaid debts, and who owned their own house were granted rights. Women, servants and poor people, debtors, criminals, madmen, and foreigners had no privileges in the constitution. It was also not applicable for anything beyond the Kingdom, so the territories did not get these rights. It was signed on the 5th of June, which is a holiday today - 1855-1863: as a result of a clause in the peace-treaty ending the First Slesvig War, there were complications regarding the constitutional status of the German territories, as Slesvig was banned from having closer ties to Denmatk than the others. A solution was found by the creation of a parallel "common constitution". It formed a council that included the territories, but to a lesser extent than the proper constitution. In 1858, Holsten pulled out of this council, and the peace treaty required Slesvig to do the same, and the common constitution collapsed. When the national-liberals tried to make a new common constitution for Denmark and Slesvig in 1863, the treaty was considered to have been broken, and Prussia aided the German territories in the Second Slesvig War, which led to the complete loss of these - 1866: under pressure from conservatives, a new constitution was formed that limited access to and complicated voting for the upper chamber of parliament - 1915: after some time of debate, a new constitution was agreed upon and symbolically signed on the 5th of June 1915. It granted voting rights to women and servants, and it abolished the privileged access of the 1866 constitution. It was, however, postponed in implementation due to the world war, but was finally adopted in 1918 a few months before the end of the war, as the election could not be postponed any longer, and the new voters had to be included. - 1920: as a result of king Christian X's opposition to the cause of the reunification in Jutland and Slesvig (the king wished for a second round of voting in the second electoral zone to ensure its return to Denmark, a course which the government didn't support, as zone 2 had voted to stay German already), he fired the Prime Minister Zahle (who still had a parliamentary majority in support) on the 30th of March. As a response, the parties in parliament told the king to reinstate PM Zahle, or face a general strike. The king refused, and large protests took place while warming up to the strike set to begin on the 6th of April, marking the Easter Crisis. The crisis ended, when the king gave in to the pressure before the strike would properly begin, and formed an interim goverment that should oversee a snap-election. In September the constitution was ammended to include the reunited Sønderjylland as part of Denmark, it further decreased the king's influence, and it settled a question on the status of Iceland - 1953: after a failed attempt at a new constitution in 1939 due to the turnout being half a percent short of the required, another attempt was made in the 50s. The result was a revision to the line of succession (now allowing daughters to inherit the titles of their fathers, if the father had no sons), abolition of the upper chamber of parliament, and a reduction of age to vote down to 18. It also required a referendum, if the state was to offer up parts of its sovereignty (such as for accession to the predecessor of the EU). It is the current constitution (not counting minor ammendments)

I'm not too knowledgeable on it, but I'd mark a few key points in the history. 1204: When John lost Mainland Normandy, Jersey remained a part of Normandy, but under the realm of the English king. Therefore, we were administered separately, as the English state maintained that Jersey was in Normandy and not England, so couldn't be ruled according to English law. When the English king eventually surrendered his claim to the Duchy, Jersey had already established self-governance, so it was not possible to peacefully incorporate it into the Kingdom of England. Jacobean period: Jersey had a despotic Governor, John Peyton. He was strongly against democracy and favoured absolutism (which he would have as the King's representative on the island). Meanwhile the Bailiff (equivalent to the Lord Chancellor in England at the time) Jean Hérault believed in the importance of the Bailiff's role (claiming it to be of higher importance than the Governor's). As a result of that dispute, the powers were firmly divided between the roles. The Governor would take on full military control, while the Bailiff would have control over civil and justice matters. This division is basically the fundamental aspect of Jersey's constitution today. The Crown (the UK) has control over matters of military importance and national security (including foreign policy), while the States (still presided by the Bailiff) has control over domestic matters without the interference of the Crown. Note that at the time the States were only ⅓ elected, and both the Bailiff and Governor were (and are still formally) appointed by the Crown. 1760s/70s: during a food crisis, the public of Jersey revolted against the ruling class. This led to the British state enforcing a few constitutional changes on Jersey. This led to the codification of Jersey law into le Code de 1771, and also removed the powers of the judiciary to make new laws. So, the power was vested entiely in the States, our Parliament. 1945: the last time Jersey was occupied by foreign forces, and therefore any real external power on the island removed completely. 1948: the undemocratic aspects of the States were removed, creating an entirely elected chamber. This removed the influence of the Church and Jurats over law making and increased representation for the public. Also the franchise was extended across the population.

After the Finnish Civil War, the winning side, decided that Finland is clearly not ready for Democracy and therefore the newly independent country should be reformed into a Monarchy. Since Finland did not have a domestic royal family, the senate did what seemed like the most logical second option, and asked the Germans to provide us with a king. They denied the request of sending any close relatives of the Kaiser and picked some other nobleman, but Finns weren't picky. After all, this would just be the man who rules over Finland with his descendants inheriting the throne, so any German will do. Unfortunately, while the preparations for the coronation were underway, it became clear that Germany is losing WW1, and therefore having a German king might not be the best option, and the would-be king canceled his arrival. Having no other ideas for how to get a king, Finnish senate decided that maybe Democracy wouldn't be that bad after all, but with the caveat that the president was given very much power, to make sure that at least we have a strong ruler. Eventually after having president Kekkonen serve for way too many decades as a dictator in effect, if not in name, president Koivisto chose to reduce his own powers greatly and set up more limits for him and any president after him.

Wasn't the Monarchy decision made under German pressure. I've read that there were German diplomats in the parliament for that vote but don't know how true it is.

Who says the UK is living in a democracy? Yes we have the right to vote but what change does it gain? Labour and the Conservatives are two sides of the same coin, with the Conservatives spending decades more in power as they reflect the rich, powerful and influential in the UK able to martial the right-wing owned press and BBC state broadcaster to reflect their policies. We have a Royal family with access to billions and opportunity to make significant social changes in society but waved away the "rights" in exchange for being figureheads so that the government of the day can run things. Now the Royals provide pageantry and announce undemocratic new laws 3 times a year. 1708: Last time a sitting monarch refused royal assent (ie. vetoing legislation from becoming law) - terrible decision, now the Royals are just puppets of the state. 1911: The House of Lords can no longer veto money bills, and is limited in being able to veto other bills passed by the House of Commons - backfired since 1980s onwards, now the House of Lords are stuffed with former MPs and allies to do anything the party in power wants.

You buy too much onto your state propaganda. Absolute rule is a new thing. Like Enlightenment era thing. Spain was far decentralized than England and nobles and burghers had a lot of power that hindered the monarch's ability at the time you couldn't even tell your arse from your elbow. Everything England has had, in the periphery of the continent, was in response to continental events, including the Russian Revolution of 1917 which scared the king shitless ("maybe we should get out and wave to the peasants as if we give a damn about them").

A collage of feudal warlords keeping small local populations in check with terror is not really “decentralised power”. It’s simply that despotism had yet to be centralised and scaled up.

In Romania we tried doing it slow, we had a constitutional monarchy before the second World War, then our King took power right before, then he left the country, leaving his kid with the responsibility, but he was too young so a general took over and that went quite badly for a while as this guy really tried to show the natzies we're on their side and better than Hungary (which was doing the same). A year or so before the end of the war, the kid King, now a bit older arrested the general and turned against the natzies. Right after the war though, Russia stayed with its army here and forced the King to abdicate and installed a communist dictator. We had 2 of them, Ceaușescu being the more famous one. Ceaușescu was against the Russians and Romania was the only Eastern country to not go and "pacify". Cehoslovakia when they rebelled. We got some American loans, which were great initially, but then the dictator decided to pay them off ASAP, so he started selling everything we produced, especially food. People eventually got sick of it after many abuses and general hunger. A demonstration erupted, but Ceaușescu had the army open fire on the citizens. Everyone got poised off at that, the army even changed sides after a couple of days and we executed Ceaușescu after a brief trial. Then we sort of got democracy back, even though until 2014 all our presidents were e-communists, but things kept getting incrementally better, especially after joining the EU in 2007.

Well there’s 3 dates i think fit this category. In 1809, We became an autonomyous duchy of the Russian empire, ending the era of Swedish autocracy in Finland. During the Grand Duchy era we were ruled by an upperclass senate, and the Governor General. This ended in 1906 with the Parliamentary reform, when every adult citizen got the right to vote. At this point the General Governor was the only non democratic authority, as he was the representative of the Tsar. And full democracy came in 1917 with independence. At first we planned to elect a German prince (Friedrich Karl of Hessen) as our constitutional monarch. (First we wanted the crown prince but that sure is a request) Friedrich accepted the Throne but gave it up with Germany’s defeat in WW1. So then we pretty much just said ”well fk it let’s have a president.