The United States: Oldest Government in the World?

OTOH, extending sufferage to more than half the population was a pretty big change.

Yes and no. The term "Prime Minister" has only been officially used for about 100 years. However, according to history there *was* a Prime Minister in the modern sense in 1778; his name was Lord North, and as well as filling the role of head of government, he was also Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the Commons.

(yes, I did have to use Wikipedia to research this)

In what sense? In the modern world, being a democracy requires some degree of universal suffrage; the US didn't qualify in that regard until well into the 20th century, well after many other countries.

What?

If you choose only certain, specific categories, you can make the argument that the U.S. government under the Constitution is the oldest government. Who cares? The real question, always, isn't which isthe oldest, or the most stable, necessarily, but the best.

Which of course forces answers to be purely subjective...(which doesn't make the question any less real or worse.. mind you)

That's pretty subjective. How does the original question imply any sense of superiority to go along with age?

It doesn't inherently do so but most of the people I've ever heard give this question a lot of energy tend to be stridently pro or anti American and inclined more toward polemics. They have tended to argue their way to their pre-determined position more than explore in an open-minded, inductive fashion. {/generalization}

Three years ago, who went troops to Iraq, the Queen or the Prime Minister?

xpost

andy, Lord North sent the troops in the King's name.

M.White... The act of 1918 I believe happened similarly at a similar time in the US did it not? I didn't know about this (in the US) until a Wikipedia article turned up on the headlines the other day. No idea about the other reform acts analogues in the US, although I guess it's unlikely that the Parliament act has an analogue.

Yes, but her 'pleasure' having been circumscribed by the threat of violence since 1688, it is rare for the monarch to go too far. They even changed family protocol under public pressure after Diana's death.

Depends then, eh?

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sm.html

oh ok

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino

Tonga.

But I hear they acquired a powerless rubber-stamp legislature lately, so it looks as if there were a "structural change", even though it's a pure sham.

I agree with those who say they are not, as they are evolutionary change coming from within the system, analagous to the growth of executive power within the US system.

the ideas that it is "basically the same" as it was in 1688 is simply bollocks in any sense (except a kind of ultra-parochial formalism*)

the transformations that the UK went through during eg WW1 and WW2 were socially revolutionary AND from "outside the system" --- they were channelled through the radical effects of war on the people fighting that war, and manifested as extreme torque on that system when war ended (as a result of the world wars, the system came seriously to pieces at the outer regions --- viz the colonies --- but survived, with severe adaptation, in the "centre")

*(i accept that the kinds of civics textbooks which define "systems of govt" do tend towards such formalism) (i think what i'm probably saying is that --- if the question really does disallow the acknowledgment that empire or war have material effects on a polity, then the answer is going to be a bit paper-thin in its usefulness)

if we're going to talk abt "changes in the system", we shd pay at least some attention to the system's material bottom line = who has control of what money

(us = currently pwned by china) (when did that come about and what changes is it making in actual - as opposed to parochial-formal - systemic structure?)

RESTATEMENT:
in 1641, civil war broke out as a result of parliament's will to gather to itself control of the disbursement of state moneys
in 197x, the elected UK govt opted to cede control )to a non-elected, non-UK body) of the disbursement of state moneys

you can argue if you like that callaghan's decision was MADE "organically", from "within the system"---but it moved a key element of sovereignty OUTSIDE the system

you can also argue if you like that the IMF move was more symbolic than anything: that um Global Kapital already had the powers it was being ceded, and that the contract healey signed simply acknowledged reality: and in fact that some other, earlier moment marked the "revolutionary moment" of the shift i'm tryin to indiicate (gimme a break i'm not an economic historian i'm an interweb mentalist!!)

in the early 90s, the US seemed the exception to this: it appeared (briefly) to achieving global economic hegemony, to be the one state which could be said to be sovereign in this area --- that isn't true any more

wikipedia says:
It boasts the world's oldest parliament, Althing, which was established in 930

But it exists as the rump of the feudal Papal lands dating back to the middle ages. It is still a feudal state, it just hold feud over a tiny part of rome and a few acres of radio transmitters in the Lazio countryside.