News Does the U.S. Have the World's Oldest Living Government?

[Futobingoro]

The question is simple: with the exception of city-states (like the Vatican), does the United States possesses the world's oldest living government?

I ask because every nation I could think of has had at least one of the following since 1789 (the beginning of the current system of U.S. government):

Revolution
Transfer of power from a colonial empire
Reorganization or reform
Capitulation to a foreign power

Such a government may be out there, I just can't think of what it may be if it does exist.

The U.S. government has existed in the same form since 1789. It was challenged during the Civil War, but was maintained and restored. Amendments are changes to the U.S. government, but they are themselves a part of the system.

 

[Cyrus]

Hmmmmm, possibly british?

 

[Futobingoro]

I have done some reading on the government of Great Britain/United Kingdom. It seems that it has been constantly evolving over the centuries, never formally changing.

Even after the United States had been formed, however, King George III maintained considerable influence in the British government, a power modern British royalty does not enjoy. There have also been considerable reorganizations since 1789. So while there has been no formal change in the British government, the modern system only loosely resembles the government under King George III.

 

[Pengwuino]

I have a feeling we're probably forgetting current monarchies/dictatorships that might have been from before the US government's establishment. The OP did not mention what type of government it had to be.

 

[Futobingoro]

It can be any kind of government, as long as it has remained unchanged from a time prior to 1789.

I may be forgetting some monarchies and/or dictatorships; what might those be?

 

[Smurf]

http://www.govspot.com/know/legbody.htm

The Althingi was established in 930 in Iceland by Viking-era settlers. The world's oldest legislative body is now Iceland's official parliament.

 

[Mk]

There's no real lines, its for you to decide.

 

[Anttech]

Does the U.S. Have the World's Oldest Living Government?

No..

A better question would have been, has the US government gone the longest time without significant change?

The answer is still No..

 

[Futobingoro]

The Althingi was suspended in 1799. Iceland was ruled by Denmark until Iceland gained its independence in 1918. Here

The answer is still No..

'No' is not a country. People say I am forgetting countries or that the U.S. does not have the oldest government, but they fail to mention an older government.

 

[Anttech]

No was the answer to you question.. If you want to be symantic then fine, Show me a government that is "living."

The British system has not changed, it is still a consitional monarchy, the same as the Netherlands, and Denmark and a lot of other non republican countries in Europe. All of which have remained this for way longer than the US's current goverment. The last time this changed for only a few years in the UK was when Oliver Cromwell defeted Charles I in 1600's.

The Queen is the head of State, whether or not she is there for show or not is irrelevent, the Law is that she has total power. However if she claimed this then the UK would become a republic very quickly...

 

[russ_watters]

As was already pointed out, most of those countries were more monarchy than constitutional when the US was established and now they are monarchies in name-only. Whether that happened slowly or all at once is immaterial: it happened and as a result, those governments bear little resemblance to their former governments.

Regarding the US civil war, that's a matter of the wording of the question: if the question is about the structure of the government itself (ie, branches of government, division between state and federal), that was not affected by the Civil War, so that objection does not apply. No one is saying, arildno, that the changes made after the civil war (or in the 1960s, or in the '20s) weren't important - they just weren't structural. In fact, there is a good argument to be made that institutions such as slavery were incompatible with the rest of the Constitution in the first place.

In addition, the mechanism for changing the Constitution - the built-in ability to evolve - is one of the things that is unique about the US government and has been in place since 1789.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Russ, I agree completely. In no way did the civil war or the civil rights movement represent a fundamental change to the US system of government. We are in fact under the same Constitution that we were two hundred years ago. And the definiton of the country is the Constitution.

 

[Pengwuino]

haha yah i just realized... what government can breathe?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...and this was a really interesting question, btw. I have always thought of the US system as a relative newcomer in the world, but not so. That's really quite amazing.

 

[Art]

No was the answer to you question.. If you want to be symantic then fine, Show me a government that is "living."

The British system has not changed, it is still a consitional monarchy, the same as the Netherlands, and Denmark and a lot of other non republican countries in Europe. All of which have remained this for way longer than the US's current goverment. The last time this changed for only a few years in the UK was when Oliver Cromwell defeted Charles I in 1600's.

The Queen is the head of State, whether or not she is there for show or not is irrelevent, the Law is that she has total power. However if she claimed this then the UK would become a republic very quickly...

Agreed, the UK democratic parliamentary system has remained fundamentally unchanged in substance since the reinstatement of the monarchy following the death of Cromwell. Since that time the power of the monarch has not altered, it is simply that the monarchy realize it is prudent not to exercise their power against the will of parliament as the last time they did, there was a civil war and the reigning monarch lost his head.
As for the oldest still exisiting government, I believe the Isle of Man's Tynwald parliament, which dates from around 979 AD, lays claim to that title .

 

[Bystander]

Can't say I'd restrict the longevity of the UK government to the post-Restoration; I'd go more with Elizabeth I as an ending date for churchy meddling, and the beginning of the secular give-and-take "power games" played by parliaments, ministers, and executives/monarchs. "Cromwell and Son, Inc." was a bit of a strain on a constitutional monarchy that was preserved in exile, and remained functional in situ as far its parliamentary roles. "Restoration" came from within, or am I mistaken in thinking Charles II sought permission from parliament to return?

What one might regard as "balance of powers" and "checks and balances" in the UK has evolved over the past 400 years, as it has in the U.S. over the past 225.

I'll bow to "Tynwald."

Regarding the OP: is the U.S. among the world's older governments? Yes.

 

[fourier jr]

...and this was a really interesting question, btw. I have always thought of the US system as a relative newcomer in the world, but not so. That's really quite amazing.

& Canada too! Canada is older than both germany & italy (as we know them today).

nobody has mentioned ethiopia yet, that country is one of the oldest independent countries in the world! (can't think of an older one actually) it has been independent (not a colony or anything else) for 2200yrs or so. by comparison Canada has been independent for only 74 or 138yrs depending on who you ask.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I believe the title the US holds is oldest surviving republic. Also the US Senate claims to be the oldest continuing legislative body. The catch there is the word "continuing"; the Senate, because of its overlapping terms, never goes out of session.

 

[Futobingoro]

The British system has not changed, it is still a consitional monarchy, the same as the Netherlands, and Denmark and a lot of other non republican countries in Europe... The last time this changed for only a few years in the UK was when Oliver Cromwell defeted Charles I in 1600's.

The United Kingdom does not even have a written constitution. There is no single, formal document which lays out the branches of government and their powers. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/british_constitution.htm is a good resource.

The American constitution is codified and available to all citizens. Each citizen can read the law - to the letter. The British constitution, on the other hand, is not codified. Such a situation is comparable to the study of physics (stay with me please). The study of the universe is understood only by a relatively small group of experts. Science's perspective on the universe has changed many times in the past 100 years, reflecting the prevailing mentality of the experts of the time period. The British government has changed in a similar way. Because its constitution exists almost exclusively in the minds of legal experts, the United Kingdom bases its constitution on the prevailing academic mentality of the present time, meaning that individuals such as Walter Bagehot and A.V. Dicey can redefine the constitution and the distribution of powers.

 

[Bystander]

The United Kingdom does not even have a written constitution. There is no single, formal document which lays out the branches of government and their powers. (snip)

If you're going to insist on written social contract as a qualification of longevity, state such a constraint in the original post. Introduction in rebuttal of Art's, Anttech's and other points is a really good way to turn a damned interesting thread into another P&WA micturition contest.

The UK can claim the Magna Carta as such a document, and it bears as much resemblance to the current government in London as does the U.S. Constitution to the bureaucratic monstrosity that currently exists. Be nicer if we can stay away from the pick-pick-pick type of stuff, though.

Ethiopia comes up. Haile Selassie could trace his throne to Solomon. He came off second best to the Derg in the mid '70s; means a lot of us were learning our world history when Ethiopian government was the longevity title holder.

 

[Futobingoro]

So if we want to avoid a drawn-out flame contest, we need to reach a conclusion.

The title of 'world's oldest living government' seems to belong to either the U.S. or the U.K.

Which is it?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So if we want to avoid a drawn-out flame contest, we need to reach a conclusion.
The title of 'world's oldest living government' seems to belong to either the U.S. or the U.K.
Which is it?

You wouldn't accept Tynwald then?

 

[Bystander]

For "oldest government" in the "unlimited class" (no qualifications), Tynwald looks good. There might be something older in Asia or among some island cultures in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, but not off the top of my head.

For "oldest government" that can actually provide all the functions expected of a government, (self-defense, public works, law enforcement,etc.) the UK.

 

[Futobingoro]

Constitutional Reform Act 2005

The government of the U.K. only loosely resembles what it was in 1789. Heck, the U.K. wasn't organized until 1801.

The Isle of Man is a dependency.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The Isle of Man is a dependency.

How does this translate to them not having a government?

I don't necessarily agree or disagree that they don't count. As stated by bystander it really depends on how you look at it ane the criteria you go by. I was just wondering what your argument against would be and the criteria you are going off of.

 

[Bystander]

Well, let's see --- we didn't have the fifty United States until 1959.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, let's see --- we didn't have the fifty United States until 1959.

The Constitution as adopted in 1789 provides for the erection of new states, and these constituional steps were carried out in adding Alaska and Hawaii. There was no governmental change but a lawful action by an existing and continuing government. Try again

 

[fourier jr]

You wouldn't accept Tynwald then?

never heard of it.

my vote goes to great britain. they've had their parliamentary system (which has been tweaked a bit) since cromwell killed king charles, which was long before the United States existed.

 

[Bystander]

Well, let's see --- we didn't have the fifty United States until 1959.

The Constitution as adopted in 1789 provides for the erection of new states, and these constituional steps were carried out in adding Alaska and Hawaii. There was no governmental change but a lawful action by an existing and continuing government. Try again

Precisely. This all took place within an existing framework.

Constitutional Reform Act 2005
The government of the U.K. only loosely resembles what it was in 1789. Heck, the U.K. wasn't organized until 1801.(snip)

Again, an action takes place within an existing framework. It wasn't previously provided for within a written constitution, but the OP was not an inquiry whether the U.S. government was the oldest constitutional government, nor whether "government" can be said to exist without a written constitution.
Now we have a third category, government based on a written, detailed constitution. That's the U.S..
We can play Berne's "Yes, but..." games forever with this, and get nowhere, or we can examine ages of governments, and all learn a few things.

 

[russ_watters]

Again, an action takes place within an existing framework.

I don't see how you can claim the UK is even close to structurally the same as it was in 1789. The removal of the power of the monarch is an enormous structural change.

 

[Bystander]

I don't see how you can claim the UK is even close to structurally the same as it was in 1789. The removal of the power of the monarch is an enormous structural change.

UK-English history isn't among my main historical interests. That said, I'd hesitate to say that power was removed from the throne by parliament so much as it was ceded by the throne to parliament, rather gracefully, during Victoria's reign. That cession may have been formally codified since 1901, but I'm still inclined to regard it more as the culmination of the process of delegation of power that began under Elizabeth I and proceeded by fits and starts to the present day. Not so much an abrupt, radical restructuring of government as it was a gradual, orderly process within an existing framework of social and legal tradition. Opinion, only --- take it as being worth exactly what you paid for it.

Comparing that transition to the transition of government finance from tariffs, duties, and imposts to income tax in the U.S., or to adjustment of war powers during the Vietnam era, or the explosion in number of nearly autonomous regulatory agencies in the second half of the 20th century, in terms of abrupt changes in character and structure of government, leaves me wondering whether the founding fathers would recognize the country.

 

[Futobingoro]

There have been expansions of bureaucracy in the U.S. government, but the issue always comes back to the same legal code - the Constitution. Britain can not make such a claim.

It is especially incorrect to claim that the United Kingdom's government is the oldest, when it was designed expressly so that it could be easily changed. Many British government experts have, in fact, criticized the U.S. government for its inflexibility. Walter Bagehot, a 19th-century British legal scholar, wrote that:

The American government calls itself a government of the supreme people; but at a quick crisis, the time when a sovereign power is most needed, you cannot find the supreme people. You have got a congress elected for one fixed period, going out perhaps by fixed installments, which cannot be accelerated or retarded - you have a president chosen for a fixed period, and immovable during that period: . . there is no elastic element... you have bespoken your government in advance, and whether it is what you want or not, by law you must keep it...

400 years of change, even if they are 400 consecutive years of change, does not constitute a 'run.'

 

[Anttech]

So we don't have a government in the UK?

Look at the remite for this thread:

The question is simple: with the exception of city-states (like the Vatican), does the United States possesses the world's oldest living government?

I ask because every nation I could think of has had at least one of the following since 1789 (the beginning of the current system of U.S. government):

Revolution
Transfer of power from a colonial empire
Reorganization or reform
Capitulation to a foreign power

Such a government may be out there, I just can't think of what it may be if it does exist.

The U.S. government has existed in the same form since 1789. It was challenged during the Civil War, but was maintained and restored. Amendments are changes to the U.S. government, but they are themselves a part of the system.

It holds true... And the UK does have a consitiution, its just not on paper!

 

[Art]

So we don't have a government in the UK?

Look at the remite for this thread:



It holds true... And the UK does have a consitiution, its just not on paper!

Perhaps the OP should have simply asked what is the oldest gov't in the world with a written constitution and an assembly called congress situated in Washington and then he would have got the answer he wanted.

 

[ComputerGeek]

It can be any kind of government, as long as it has remained unchanged from a time prior to 1789.
I may be forgetting some monarchies and/or dictatorships; what might those be?

then by that criteria, the US current US government tis only about 40 years old since the last amendment was passed.

I agree about Britain being older.

They still have a monarchy, but slowly there government changed into one where the parliament (which they had when we formed ours) took on more and more power. There government has the same structure as it did before the US was a nation, the power simply shifted from monarchical control or parliamentarian control.

 

[Art]

I don't see how you can claim the UK is even close to structurally the same as it was in 1789. The removal of the power of the monarch is an enormous structural change.

That change occurred 100 years before 1789. Starting in 1215, when the Magna Carta was signed by King John, there was a period of nearly 400 years when, from time to time, Parliament and the Monarch would disagree, sometimes violently, about which had the final say in decisions.

In the 17th Century there was a Civil War in England when battles were fought between armies representing the King (the ‘Cavaliers’) and Parliament (the ‘Roundheads’). Parliament won and King Charles I was eventually executed, although his son, Charles II, was restored to the throne a few years later.

The struggle between the Monarch and Parliament came to an end following the defeat of James II and the crowning of William of Orange when in 1689 the Bill of Rights was passed. This stated that laws could only be made or repealed by Parliament and not by the Monarch alone.

The only major change since then has been in the extension of the right to vote. In the early 19th century only 3% of men had a vote then starting with the Great Reform Act of 1832 the vote was gradually extended to greater numbers of people.

The Representation of the People Act 1918 allowed most women aged 30 and over to vote for the first time and the Representation of the People Act 1969 lowered the voting age from 21 years to 18 as at present.

 

[Futobingoro]

The only major change since then has been in the extension of the right to vote.

Are you certain?

[highlight]The reduction in the influence of the Crown was clearly indicated by the events of William's reign[/highlight], especially the dismissal of the Melbourne ministry. The crisis relating to Melbourne's dismissal also indicated the reduction in the King's influence with the people. During the reign of George III, the King could have dismissed one ministry, appointed another, dissolved Parliament, and expected the people to vote in favour of the new administration. Such was the result of a dissolution in 1784, after the dismissal of the Coalition Ministry; such was the result of a dissolution in 1807, after the dismissal of William Wyndham Grenville, 1st Baron Grenville. But when William IV dismissed the Melbourne ministry, the Tories under Sir Robert Peel were not fortunate enough to win the ensuing elections. [highlight]Thus, the King's ability to influence the opinion of the people, and therefore generally dictate national policy, had been reduced. None of William's successors has attempted to remove a ministry and appoint another against the wishes of Parliament.[/highlight]

King William IV began his reign in 1830.

Queen Victoria was Britain's first modern monarch. Previous monarchs had been active players in the process of government. A series of legal reforms saw the House of Commons' power increase, at the expense of the Lords and the monarchy, with the monarch's role becoming more symbolic. Since Victoria's reign the monarch has had, in Walter Bagehot's words, "the right to be consulted, the right to advise, and the right to warn".

Queen Victoria began her reign in 1837. As far as I am concerned, the present form of British constitutional monarchy dates from Queen Victoria. She was, after all, called the "first modern monarch."

And the reduction of the monarch's power was not voluntary, as is implied here:

Agreed, the UK democratic parliamentary system has remained fundamentally unchanged in substance since the reinstatement of the monarchy following the death of Cromwell. Since that time the power of the monarch has not altered, it is simply that the monarchy realize it is prudent not to exercise their power against the will of parliament as the last time they did, there was a civil war and the reigning monarch lost his head.

It is actual legislation which has removed the monarch's power, not the monarch's voluntary abstention.

Monarchy means, "rule by one." The gradual reduction of the British monarch's power removed the last traces of "rule by one."

The United States is, and has always been, a republic. A republic is a system in which citizens vote for representatives. No legislation or restructuring has changed that since 1789.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)It is actual legislation which has removed the monarch's power, not the monarch's voluntary abstention.
(snip)

I'm going to ask for some specifics (acts, names, dates) on this.

The United States is, and has always been, a republic. A republic is a system in which citizens vote for representatives. No legislation or restructuring has changed that (I've highlighted the antecedent for "that" in red.) since 1789.

Could you review the history of the senate vis a vis this statement for the rest of us, please?

 

[Futobingoro]

Could you review the history of the senate vis a vis this statement for the rest of us, please?

No, I would rather review the history of the House of Representatives.

 

[Anttech]

Futobingoro:
What was the point in you starting this thread? It seems that whatever we say you are going to twist to suit your needs. Which is that the US "has the oldest goverment". I think we have quashed this idea for you enough...
sigh

It is actual legislation which has removed the monarch's power, not the monarch's voluntary abstention.

This isn't true, the Monarch still has total power, as I explained before.. They just don't use it, which is a voluntary abstention

 

[Futobingoro]

What was the point in you starting this thread? It seems that whatever we say you are going to twist to suit your needs. Which is that the US "has the oldest goverment". I think we have quashed this idea for you enough...

The only way that you can quash the idea that the U.S. has the oldest government is to use a double standard, as you have done. For example:

my vote goes to great britain. they've had their parliamentary system (which has been tweaked a bit) since cromwell killed king charles, which was long before the United States existed.

So you determine the U.K. government's age based on its oldest part. On the other hand:

the US current US government tis only about 40 years old since the last amendment was passed.

You determine the U.S. government's age by its newest part? That is a double standard.

This isn't true, the Monarch still has total power, as I explained before.. They just don't use it, which is a voluntary abstention

There is no direct relation between what a person writes and the truth. Something is true not because somebody wrote it. You need to have a source to back your claim. I am going to show you what a source looks like and disprove your claim at the same time (convenient, isn't it?):

Queen Victoria was Britain's [highlight]first modern monarch[/highlight]. Previous monarchs had been active players in the process of government. [highlight]A series of legal reforms saw the House of Commons' power increase, at the expense of the Lords and the monarchy, with the monarch's role becoming more symbolic.[/highlight] Since Victoria's reign the monarch has had, in Walter Bagehot's words, "the right to be consulted, the right to advise, and the right to warn".

Legal reforms are voluntary only to the extent that one chooses to follow the law.

The monarch ceased being a legislative figure with Queen Victoria's reign, there can be no doubt about it.

 

[Art]

It is actual legislation which has removed the monarch's power, not the monarch's voluntary abstention.

It didn't remove the monarch's power it limited it and made it subservient to parliament in most instances, and I quoted the applicable legislation - The Bill of Rights 1689. Now if you believe this act has been superseded please provide a reference.

The UK parliament is not the oldest in the world, as I've already stated the Tynwald of the Isle of Man seems to hold that title which you seem to be ignoring , however the British gov't is older than the US gov't.

The monarch is still a very important figure in the British legislative process as ALL acts of parliament require the royal assent before they become law.
Although it is rare these days for the monarch to withold consent the most recent occasion was in 1999 when the queen refused to signify her consent to the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill, which sought to transfer from the monarch to Parliament the power to authorize military strikes against Iraq. Due to the Crown's refusal to consent to the bill's hearing, it was automatically dropped.
The monarch also has the right to govern without approval of parliament in many areas covered by the royal perogative (including the right to declare war which as I mentioned above parliament tried unsucessfully to have transferred to them) although in recent times this power (in most areas) has only been exercised on the advice of the executive branch of gov't.