2025年5月27日 星期二

From Constitutional to Militant to Military-Coerced Monarchy: A Historical Evolution

 

From Constitutional to Militant to Military-Coerced Monarchy: A Historical Evolution

In political science and historical studies, "constitutional monarchy," "militant constitutional monarchy," and "military-coerced monarchy" describe the evolving relationship between monarchical power and military force in state governance. This is a complex historical process, often accompanied by drastic social changes and conflicts.

Constitutional Monarchy

A Constitutional Monarchy refers to a political system where the monarch's power is explicitly limited by a constitution or laws, and is shared with or subordinate to an elected parliament. In this system, the monarch serves as a symbolic head of state, while actual political power is typically held by the parliament and government.

Characteristics:

  • Constitutional Supremacy: The constitution defines the scope of the monarch's power and guarantees civil rights.
  • Parliamentary Sovereignty: Parliament holds legislative power and oversight over the government.
  • Monarch "Reigns but Does Not Rule": The monarch acts as a symbol of national unity, with primarily ceremonial duties.

Historical Examples:

  • United Kingdom: The British constitutional monarchy is a long evolutionary process, with key turning points including:
    • The Glorious Revolution (1688): William III and Mary II accepted the Bill of Rights, establishing the supremacy of Parliament and limiting the monarch's power, a crucial step towards constitutional monarchy.
    • Developments Post-18th Century: With the maturation of the cabinet system and the expansion of suffrage, the monarch's actual power further diminished, eventually leading to the "reigns but does not rule" status.
  • Japan: After the Meiji Restoration, Japan emulated Prussia to establish a constitutional monarchy. The Emperor was endowed with significant power, but a parliament was also established. However, this system gradually evolved in later periods.

The Transition from Constitutional to Militant Constitutional Monarchy

The term Militant Constitutional Monarchy (though not a standard political science term) can be used to describe a unique state: within the framework of a constitutional monarchy, the military exerts an abnormally strong, even dominant, influence on national politics, and the monarch's power is, to some extent, dependent on or deeply intertwined with military force. This differs from a normal constitutional arrangement where the monarch is commander-in-chief; instead, it indicates the military's overreach beyond its proper constitutional functions.

Causes and Turning Points of Transition:

This transition typically occurs under the following circumstances:

  1. National Security Crises or External Wars: During wartime, the status and influence of military forces rise sharply. The monarch may grant greater power to the military to address national crises.
  2. Military Autonomy and Special Status: In some countries, the military may historically enjoy a high degree of autonomy, even being seen as the nation's "guardian," transcending the status of ordinary government departments.
  3. Monarch's Personal Traits and Ambition: If the monarch himself has a strong military background or autocratic tendencies, they may use the military's power to consolidate and expand their own authority, suppressing parliament and civilian government.
  4. Domestic Political Disorder or Threats: When civilian governments are weak and unable to effectively maintain social order or handle domestic crises, the military may intervene. The monarch, in order to maintain their rule, may also choose to rely on the military.

Historical Example:

  • Imperial Japan after the Meiji Restoration (1868-1945): Although Japan had a constitution and a parliament, the Meiji Constitution granted the Emperor immense power as the supreme commander of the army and navy. The military (General Staff Office, Navy General Staff, etc.) reported directly to the Emperor, independent of the cabinet.
    • Key Turning Points:
      • The Service Ministers to be Active-Duty Officers System (established in 1900): This rule stipulated that the Army and Navy Ministers must be active-duty generals or admirals. This gave the military the power to veto cabinet formation, as without their consent, a cabinet could not be formed or would have to resign en masse. This was a crucial institutional guarantee for the military's superiority over the civilian government.
      • The Mukden Incident (1931) and Subsequent Militaristic Expansion: The Kwantung Army initiated the incident without government authorization, demonstrating the military's lack of control by the cabinet. Thereafter, the military's influence in Japanese politics steadily grew, and civilian governments were gradually sidelined.
      • The February 26th Incident (1936): Young military officers launched a coup attempt. Although eventually suppressed, the incident further strengthened the military's influence over politics, and anti-expansionist politicians were marginalized.

In this "militant constitutional monarchy" state, while the constitution and parliament still exist, real power gradually shifts towards the military and the monarch (or their representatives) who are closely aligned with the military. The monarch outwardly remains a monarch within a constitutional framework, but their power is essentially exercised and maintained through the military.

The Evolution from Militant to Military-Coerced Monarchy

Military-Coerced Monarchy describes an extreme state where the monarch's power is completely hijacked or dominated by military force. At this point, the constitution and parliament may exist in name only, and the monarch himself becomes a puppet or tool of the military, with their decisions and actions subject to strong military intervention or direct orders.

Evolution Process and Key Characteristics:

This evolution is typically the result of a further deterioration of the "militant constitutional monarchy" state, characterized by:

  1. Full Military Penetration of Politics: The military not only influences decisions but directly controls government departments, installing its cronies in key positions.
  2. Suppression of Dissent and Political Purges: The military uses force to suppress opposition, including politicians, intellectuals, and even members of the imperial family, to consolidate its rule.
  3. Abolition or Subordination of Constitution and Parliament: The constitution becomes a mere facade, and parliament becomes a rubber stamp, or is even directly dissolved.
  4. Monarch Becomes a Puppet: The monarch no longer possesses an independent will or decision-making power, serving as a tool for the military to maintain its legitimacy. Their personal safety and status may also be threatened.

Historical Example:

  • Late Imperial Japan (roughly late 1930s to 1945): This period can be seen as the apex of the evolution from "militant constitutional monarchy" to "military-coerced monarchy." Although Emperor Hirohito was nominally the supreme commander, in reality, the military (especially the army) had overwhelming influence.

    • Key Turning Points:
      • The Fall of the Hirota Koki Cabinet (1937): The military interfered with cabinet appointments, forcing the cabinet to resign en masse. This demonstrated the military's direct control over cabinet formation.
      • After the Outbreak of World War II: As the war deepened, the military's position in national decision-making further solidified. Although the Emperor expressed differing opinions at certain critical junctures (such as the decision to surrender), for the most part, he followed the military's established policies, passively approving the military's war plans and policies. The Emperor's power was "coerced" by the military clique; he became the source of legitimacy for militaristic expansion, but his room for independent decision-making was extremely limited.
      • The Tojo Hideki Cabinet (1941-1944): Tojo Hideki simultaneously held multiple key positions, including Prime Minister and Army Minister, consolidating military dictatorship.

  • Monarchies in some Middle Eastern or African countries after military coups: In some cases, the military overthrows a constitutional monarchical government but retains the monarch as a nominal head of state to maintain some legitimacy or avoid strong international backlash. In such situations, the monarch is completely under military control, representing a "military-coerced monarchy." For example, in certain periods of military rule in Thailand or Egypt, the monarch's position might have been strongly influenced by the military, but this is usually a short-term phenomenon after a coup, rather than a long-term evolution of "militant constitutional monarchy."

Conclusion

These three concepts represent different stages in the relationship between monarchical power and military force:

  • Constitutional Monarchy: Monarchical power is strictly limited by the constitution, with parliamentary dominance.
  • Militant Constitutional Monarchy (Special Form): Within a constitutional framework, the military exerts an abnormally strong, even dominant, influence on national politics, and monarchical power is deeply intertwined with the military.
  • Military-Coerced Monarchy: The military completely hijacks or dominates the monarch, who becomes a puppet, and the constitution and parliament exist in name only.

This is a process that moves from dispersed and limited power to the gradual encroachment of military force into political power, ultimately leading to comprehensive control over the monarch and national politics. Understanding this evolution is crucial for analyzing the political landscape of different countries during specific historical periods.

張貼者： 於