Um, when the U.S. became a "democracy," England had a King...

Submitted by Garry Herzog (United States), Jun 21, 2008 at 03:10

The debate about what might be considered "the world's oldest continuous democracy" is a fascinating one with several contenders, and complicated by many shades of definition (such as the advent of universal sufferage, or the oldest continuous constitution).

I'm from the U.S. and I'm open to learning that another country might more justly claim to be "the oldest democracy on earth," etc., but, I'm not so open to the claim that country would be England.

Folks, when the U.S. wrested its independence from England -- Thank You, France! -- England had a hereditary king, Parliament or no. Today that royalty is entirely for show, but back then, England's King was a true head of state, yes?. A power in the government, even a decisive power. I'm no expert on U.K. history, but I think the fact of a King, an unelected head of state, who can decide or at least mightily influence whether your country is at war or peace, rather does not qualify as a "democracy" under any reasonable shades of definition.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".