Dwarf on a giant shoulder
Chaiyan Chaiporn
Although in the article titled Gustav III of Sweden: The Forgotten Despot of the Age of Enlightenment (King Gustav III of Sweden: King of the Forgotten Lands)” AD Harvey would say that there was very little study of Gustav III of Sweden (1746-1792) compared to other righteous kings in Europe. However, although there are few who study Gustav as Harvey put it. But in the few works that study him All of them always spoke of him in admiration.
such as at work The Age of the Enlightened Despot: 1660-1789 of AH Johnson Scholars at All Souls College, University of Oxford which was published 16 times in 27 years (between 1909-1936), although little mention of Gustav But what Johnson said regarding him was that “With the wisdom and power that is overflowing Gustav was able to keep Sweden’s independence….God Gustav was an amazing young man who dreamed of making Sweden great in Europe once once more…..and besides making Sweden has survived falling under other European powers. He was also able to bring Sweden back to his role once once more.”
I can’t deny that Sweden has played an important role in the European political arena thanks to Gustav. Although Gustav was regarded as “The Enlightened King” (the Enlightened King), but he is different from Other “Pure Kings” in Europe especially The use of military force to seize power from the parliamentary party and in seizing his power It seems difficult to draw a clear line between a coup and a revolution. Because although his seizure of power received a lot of support from the Swedish masses. And he issued a new constitution (1772) that gave the monarchy a lot of power, both executive and legislative. Yet, he did not completely abolish the National Assembly, representing the people. because it still gives the National Assembly the power to limit or dispute the use of the royal powers of the King
especially in important matters, including the legislation to raise taxes His own constitution stipulated that The King must convene the National Assembly to enact such laws. The monarch cannot use its executive powers to enact tax laws arbitrarily. including the war in a way that is not to protect the country but an aggressive war The monarch, as the head of the executive branch, cannot declare war without the approval of the parliament. but in addition convening the parliament to consider other matters It depends on whether the King will approve the meeting or not, and it turns out that throughout his reign He convened only a handful of parliamentary sessions.
Therefore, for those who emphasize that the Parliament has a lot of power One might see his seizure of power as a retrograde revolution from the constitutional monarchy back to the absolute monarchy. While those who do not emphasize the power of the Parliament. One might see that his seizure of power was a coup d’etat. because it is still a monarchy under the constitution with a very limited power of parliament and greatly increase the royal power of the monarchy !
He was able to do so because, as A.H. Johnson described it, unlike any other scholar. who studied the story of Gustav “Fifty years before he ascended to the throne Sweden was greatly weakened under the aristocratic rule of parliament. Moreover, these aristocrats are divided into conflicts and compete for power, causing great disdain for the masses. and when he seized power The public therefore gave overwhelming support.”
in the study of Swedish government politics in the eighteenth century Harvey compared this study to the politics of British government during the same period. As already mentioned The authority of the Swedish monarch before Gustav III was different from the royal authority. Great British King because it seems The monarch was only a name in name, so Sweden’s constitutional monarchy at that time might not be said to be a constitutional monarchy compared to that of England. Rather, it is likely a regime in which power is concentrated and concentrated only on the parliament. Still, Sweden is more advanced than Britain in some respects, for example, while women in the UK have no voting rights at all. But in Sweden, rights are granted to women who meet certain criteria. But most of the seats in parliament belonged to the elite. Farmers do not have a single representative in the so-called commission. “the Secret Committee” which is the committee that considers the fiscal budget and foreign affairs As for the High Council, there are mostly elites. But Sweden is the only country in Europe where farmers are free. and has the right to have a vote of representatives in the House of Representatives
when talking regarding parliament Though outwardly seen in the eyes of an outsider, both the Swedish and British parliaments in the mid-eighteenth century were dominated by royal heirs. But the British aristocracy was empowered by the influence of large property ownership, in other words, influenced by their wealth. And the vast majority of British aristocrats tend to oppose increasing the budget of the land expenditure. Most of Sweden’s elites are not wealthy and rely on the state budget as their income. And more than half of Swedish elites serve in the military or hold high positions in the civil service.
and when comparing the British and Swedish elections will find that in the eighteenth century While the British elections are notorious for being “sorcerers”! and “Rom Kot Cheat” continued until the nineteenth century.
It can be said with a full mouth that British elections for the first 195 years following the change of government The UK has a serious problem with vote buying and violence. as the text appears in the book “Parliamentary Reform: 1785-1928” is a textbook used in English secondary school) The author is Sean Lang Published 1999: that “..elections might still be very violent affairs and were often as brazenly corrupt as ever—indeed, some thought the Ballot Act made them more corrupt rather than less, since the more venal voters (venal) ) might now accept bribes from both parties without either knowing how they actually voted.” Finally, the Corrupt Practices Act was enacted in 1883, which effectively dealt with vote trading.
But for the elections in Sweden Harvey said There is much less corruption than the British. And he said of the differences in electoral corruption between England and Sweden: British election fraud The money used to buy the voice came from the pockets of the rich and the elite. (In the case of not inheriting the chair by blood) who wants to win the election The money used to buy votes in Sweden’s elections comes from foreign governments looking to buy Swedish politicians aristocracy.
In other words, it is Wealthy British politicians use money to buy votes from poor British people: poor British people sell their votes to wealthy British politicians. Swedish aristocratic politicians sell themselves (voices) to foreign governments!
The huge volume of trades between Swedish politicians and foreign governments in Sweden took place during Sweden’s eponymous era. “Age of Liberty” (Age of Liberty: 1718-1772) For fifty years, political power was completely in the hands of Parliament. And it is fifty years in which Parliament has full power. The monarchy acts only as a certifying rubber stamp. and from the failure to carry out parliamentary foreign policy and the sale of votes to foreigners. As a result, people are dissatisfied with the work and corruption of the elite politicians in the parliament. and turned back to support the monarchy under Gustav III.
in foreign policy The aristocratic parliament was split into two. One side supports France. The other side supports Russia, and AD Harvey is quoted as saying in the article Gustav III of Sweden: The Forgotten Despot of the Age of Enlightenment. (King Gustav III of Sweden: King of the Forgotten Lands” that in the foreign support of these two sides It was not for the benefit of the Swedish nation at all. Harvey cited a report by British representatives in Stockholm in April 1771 that Sweden was not important enough for Britain to establish full diplomatic relations. The main cause lies in the behavior of the elite in the Swedish parliament and receiving money from nations.
After Adolf Fredrik, father of Gustav III, died in February 1772, Gustav met with Frederick. the second of Prussia (Frederick the Great), who was honored as his maternal uncle and King Frederick rebuked the sale of votes to the foreigners of the parliamentary aristocracy saying: “If there are still Swedes left in Sweden Those people would inevitably agree to break up different opinions. But foreign vote-buying destroys the spirit of Swedish nationality so that reconciliation is difficult to achieve.”
It can be said that Sweden during “Era of Freedom” This led Sweden to a great decline, despite Sweden being the second largest European state following Russia at the time. Because Sweden’s territory at that time included Finland and parts of present-day Germany. The merchants and landowners in Finland are also of Swedish descent and speak Swedish. But in the area of Germany More and more people speak German. to see them as more German than Swedish which of course Gustav III, in his mind, saw and regretted the potential and problem of Swedish integration in Europe.
In the period before the end of his father’s reign Gustav made every effort to end the conflict between the aristocracy in parliament, but it was unsuccessful. and as has been said before He was the first Swedish monarch in more than a century to address the Swedish parliament at his coronation in June 1771, and he borrowed the words of George III of England, as previously mentioned in the coronation speech of King George III in September 1761.
King George said “Born and educated in this country I prosper in the name of being an Englishman” (“Born and educated in this country I glory in the name of Briton”) and from those words Gustav said at his coronation: “Born and brought up among you I… considered the highest privilege to be born as a Swedish. It is the greatest honor to be born a Swede, the greatest honor to be the first citizen of a free people.”
and finally, with a determination to save Sweden from its downfall. He decided to seize power from the aristocratic parliament, which A.D. Harvey said. The coup was a classic European model. since the seizure of power from the British Parliament by Oliver Cromwell in 1653
