Thanks to God Save the Queen, I am reminded that yesterday was the 356th anniversary of the execution of King Chrales I of England. GStQ links to an NRO article that is well worth reading and which ties together the way that the English Civil War provided the foundation for much of the concepts we take for granted today.
In the raging debate about the meaning and significance of the Iraqi election on Sunday, no one has noticed a strange fact. This election, which many hope will spark a democratic revolution for the Middle East, falls on the same day — January 30 — as the event which set in motion the modern West's first democratic revolution more than 365 years ago. It was on that day in 1649 that King Charles I of England was beheaded after his formal trial for treason and tyranny, an epoch-shattering event that destroyed the notion of divine right of kings forever, and gave birth to the principle that reverberates down to today, from President Bush's inaugural address last week to the Iraqi election this Sunday: that all political authority requires the consent of the people. Although few like to admit it now, it was Charles's execution, along with the civil war that preceded it and the political turmoil that followed, that established our modern notions of democracy, liberty, and freedom of speech. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that "the tree of liberty must sometimes be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," he was thinking primarily of the legacy of the English civil war.
Interestingly Michelle Malkin links to a reprint in the Houston Chronicle of the oped by the tyrant-toadying self-publicist Ramsay Clark which I fisked last week. I say interestingly because a large chunk of the reason why Saddam Hussein is sitting in a jail cell somewhere instead of pushing up the date palms is because of Charles Stuart. Charles Stuart was the first monarch in the world (as far as I know - corrections welcome) to be tried for treason (effectively misgovernment), found guilty and then executed. Up until 30 January 1649 rulers could expect a battlefield death (think Richard III) or a swift extra-judicial execution if they lost a war. In 1649 in England however King Charles was tried in public amidst significant controversy.
Arguments similar to those made by Ramsey Clark were made by those unwilling to see him tried and he also attempted, pace Slobodan Milosovic in the Hague, to claim that the court had no jurisdiction over him. Unfortunately he discovered that the court felt it did and could therefore find him guilty and sentence him to death. However, and this is where Clark goes totally off the rails, a fair open trial does not mean there need be any doubt about the result, Saddam Hussein misgoverned his nation for longer than Charles I, but it would seem to me that much of the charge sheet against King Charles would apply to Hussein:
That the said Charles Stuart, being admitted King of England, and therein trusted with a limited power to govern by and according to the laws of the land, and not otherwise; and by his trust, oath, and office, being obliged to use the power committed to him for the good and benefit of the people, and for the preservation of their rights and liberties; yet, nevertheless, out of a wicked design to erect and uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will, and to overthrow the rights and liberties of the people, yea, to take away and make void the foundations thereof, and of all redress and remedy of misgovernment, which by the fundamental constitutions of this kingdom were reserved on the people's behalf in the right and power of frequent and successive Parliaments, or national meetings in Council; he, the said Charles Stuart, for accomplishment of such his designs, and for the protecting of himself and his adherents in his and their wicked practices, to the same ends hath traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present Parliament, and the people therein represented...
The precedent that the execution set, which was reinforced a few decades later with the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, showed that even unelected rulers may govern solely with the consent of the people and that a ruler that has lost that consent has lost the right to rule. If the Iraqi Assembly elected yesterday can impose just that principle upon whatever form of government they produce for the future then the toppling of Saddam Hussein will be worth it. As with Stuart England it is worth recalling that the first attempt may fail. The regicides of 1649 that were still alive in 1660 were hung, drawn and quartered, we can hope that the coalition of the willing will help ensure that the same does not occur to the emerging politicians of Iraq.