The institution of the Church had an important role in the process of developing the state in Europe. The fact that Christianity has conquered the Roman Empire by gradually making it sovereign to its citizens does not mean that it has conquered Europe during the same period under consideration.
Western Europe has been delayed in adopting Christianity. This fact is because one of the strongest Germanic tribes-the Scandinavian-and more generally other pagan Germanic tribes had not adopted Christianity. In fact, Western Europe became part of Christian doctrine from 11ο century onwards.
by Thanos S. Chonthrogiannis-https://www.liberalglobe.com
The role of the Church in the formation of the state
The fact that the Church had its own permanent institutions was normal to affect also the state-forming institutions in Europe. The kings and generally the power of the monarchy was surrounded by advisers-supreme in hierarchy priests who played an active role in influencing the royal decisions regarding the life of citizens, politics and more generally what we call cosmic (secular) life.
In addition, the clergy functioned as administrators of the Royal property and as head of monasteries-ecclesiastical princes. On the other hand, the Kings were involved in the developments of the Church, influencing with their decision’s ecclesiastical issues of great importance. This event created admiration and many times copy on the part of the royal and generally secular power, leading them to adopt the Church’s procedures, techniques and theories of administration equally.
During this embrace between Church and secular power there were turbulent periods between them. Through these turbulent periods it was understood that in order to function more efficiently in their role, both secular power and the Church should be independent of each other. This fact was understood when the leadership of the Catholic Church wanted to reform the clergy (11th century).
In order to manage the clergy more effectively and make the best use of its human resources throughout the European continent, the Church had to have a centralized structure under the leadership of its head (Pope-for Catholic Church and Ecumenical Patriarch for the Eastern Roman (Orthodox) Church respectively). For this reason, the Church with its administrative structure and institutions was the first supranational organization in Europe and the most connecting link between the different European peoples, while constituting a model of administration. At the same time, however, this centralist structure of the Church under its leadership would make it even more powerful and prone to meddling in the decisions of secular power.
At the end of the periods of crisis between Church and secular power, the Kings lost their authority on ecclesiastical issues-appointing supreme clergy and the Church was completely separated from its involvement in secular matters. This made the Church more flexible in the new role it had undertaken in the education and spiritual restoration of European society. Certainly, the role of the Church was decisive because it created for the first time a single religious Europe. But in no way was this religious unity a political unity, nor was it a state.
The end of migratory flows in Europe
Also, a great factor in assisting the emergence of the state in Europe was the end of a long period of migration and invasions that forced large proportions of the then European population to migrate within Europe to avoid their demise. The conquests of the Franks, the end of the civil War of the Franks (771 A.D.), the end of the attacks by the Scandinavian people against the Franks, the annihilation of the Ostrogoths by the Byzantines, the conquests of the Danes over the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, etc. stopped gradually after the end of 10th century.
This made it possible for populations to stay long in the same area-region, as we mentioned in the first part of our analysis, for a very long period. This single event turned the energies of the populations from them up to then attempt to survive by aspiring conquerors in their effort to raise their standard of living through peaceful-type operations and trade action that brings rise of wealth. The goal of the king, but mainly the local ruler and his subjects, was to increase their wealth and acquire property to bequeath it to their descendants.
The Taxation and Law systems in the newer state models
The identification of the desires and needs of the ruler and his subjects led to political stability. The creation of an army for security from external risks has declined since the cost of maintaining an army for a long time has been very painful financially. The creation of a system of courts and judicial institutions has increased political stability and ensured internal security.
At the same time, the courts in their first main stages, apart from the task of resolving disputes, also had the duty to levy revenue for the King, since most offences were fined. Given the peaceful coexistence of populations and the gradual increase in wealth, a system of tax collection began to be created to finance in turn the necessary expenditure for the defense of the Kingdom against external enemies.
Simultaneously, the division between secular power and the Church increased the necessity for secular power to focus on increasingly better law enforcement. Within this framework and throughout the kingdom, legal codes and judicial institutions were created which followed a hierarchical structure in the administration of justice and were always specialized based on the nature of the offence.
Tax systems and court systems are necessary institutions for the creation of a state. But in Western Europe, there is a great basis for Law, influencing the shaping and development of the newest models of states developed by Europe and adopted by the rest of the world. The institution of the state in Western Europe is based on the law. The existence of the state is intended to enforce the law.
The ruler in the state of Western Europe is morally and politically bound by the law. The law in the state of Western Europe regulated trade relations, family relationships, ownership and legal property. The models of Western European states are in fact the rule of law and their supreme goal was and always is to be constitutional (rule of law) states. That is why they have gained the trust and support of their citizens from then until today. That is why most citizens of the world want to live in the states of the West today.
The Europe of the 13th century formulates political theories based on Roman law. That is why the law is used as a basis for the creation of states.
The role of bureaucracy in the structure of archetypal forms of state
The continued efforts to improve the systems of the courts and the collection of taxes began to promote political culture and to show the first signs of the need for the recruitment of specific permanent employees to carry out these tasks.
The European Renaissance (13ο-14ο) century has created a huge increase for learning in thousands of people. By graduating from schools immediately afterwards they were taking jobs near secular and ecclesiastical officials. The rapid growth of educated people has enabled early state models to create permanent institutions in them. The permanent institutions needed to keep records and official documents necessary to operate. This means an increased number of educated employees who can carry out these tasks.
The notions of the common good and the notion of the ruler’s duty to protect the common good were developed. The concept of general taxation was based on these concepts. For the first time in Europe, the concept of state is appearing. The word “Res Publica” of Romans and the word “Commonwealth” of English is like what is now called “State”.
The Europeans of the 13ο-14ο century have knowledge about the meaning of the state. They already have civil law and taxation.
For the first time in Europe, officials are appearing as property managers, known prevots (France) reeves and shire-reeves (the oldest private institution-in England, which over the centuries became a public institution-sheriffs in USA) and the ministerials (Germany). The tasks of these were to collect the incomes that was in their jurisdiction on behalf of their masters. To accomplish these tasks, they needed to keep records and undergo auditing. All these private institutions of local property managers constituted both the principle and the basis from which the central public budgetary institutions emerged.
The development of the court system and how it determines the territorial integrity of a State
In the first part of this analysis we introduced the way in which the King-ruler as head of the system of courts was able to control his territory and exercise his authority in remote areas of his kingdom.
The system of taxation was imposed for the financing of the expenditure of the kingdom, e.g. initially for defense. In addition, the courts collected money from the imposed fines. The evolution of the court system over time was reinforced. More specifically, criminal offences were avenged in the King-ruler’s court. In this way the King could intervene in those areas where local rights of justice (the lowest in hierarchy courts) were held by the local ruler.
The King to increase his power had appointed special types of procedures through which the opposing parties in a trial had the right to circumvent the court of the local ruler (feudal lord) and to seek a court that was exclusively controlled by the King. In this way the citizens of the various local rulers could receive protection from the King and essentially morally and mentally were attached to the King who protected them against the local rulers.
The King’s direct intervention as a method of justice to the courts of local rulers was a more widespread method in England (12ο-13ο century). This is also because the different peoples of Britain who lived in areas such as Wales, Scotland, Normandy etc. were conquered by war by the English. It was customary, therefore, for the King’s intervention in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom to be more direct and more dynamic to bring justice to the conquered peoples.
Since the King was the head of the court system, a litidist who believed that he was victimized from a local court decision could at any time appeal to the decision of a local court that the rights of justice belonged to the local Lord. The appeal against the decision of a local court and its hearing in the King’s Court as a method of justice by the King was most common in France (12ο-13ο century). This is also because the French kingdom consisted of citizens belonging to the same nation and there were no peoples conquered as in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom.
Whatever system they applied, the power of the King over time increased. The result that was raised through this structure of the courts was that, the sovereign difference between the regions that were under the direct authority of the King and the feudal-regions belonging to the local rulers, it was constantly decreasing to the point that this sovereign difference became insignificant.
When this difference reached the point of not being there, it automatically meant that the scattered feuds-units of local political power within a kingdom had disappeared and a solid territorial integrity emerged over which a King held the highest authority (the sizable state). Of course, this process lasted for centuries not for years.
The huge contribution of the court system lies in the fact that the local rulers (before the appearance of the court system) in order to increase their resources would either oppress their citizens or would made war with others neighboring rulers to increase their revenues and property. Since the court system was applied and a higher court could prevent a local war through peaceful settlement of disputes forcing the local ruler (feudal lord) to harmonize with existing legal rules, this local ruler and his feudal could not be independent.
The results from the implementation and continuous improvement of the system of courts
The continuous improvement of the functioning of the courts for the administration of justice has resulted:
1. It promoted and might strengthen the preservation of the sizable state.
2. The King at his coronation swore to confer justice. Essentially, the administration of justice constituted for him the proof of his authority and the main weapon for the predominance of his sovereignty within his kingdom.
3. The Justice of the King was lawful with the preaching of the Church saying that the administration of justice belongs to secular power and not to Church power.
4. For the people, the administration of justice constituted protection both against all forms of violence that appear at times in society and in the loss of all forms of property.
5. The local rulers, knowing that their local courts were functioning flawlessly (in the administration of justice) became directly popular in their local society. Because of their popularity they could hope to gain counsel’s position next to the King.
6. Over time, the law applied by the courts was becoming more and more complex and more complicated by requiring the judge to have special training to formulate it, dedicating his whole life to legal matters.
7. This specific specialization required by the judges forced the separation of judges’ duties, since they also had the task of collecting revenue. A direct result of this was to recruit other employees to collect annuities, gradually creating the basis of a system for collecting state revenues and generally the basis for establishing permanent financial institutions in the State.
8. The newest state models in Europe (13ο century) are now based on two main institutions. The institution of the Supreme Court and the institution of the Ministry of Finance-Public Revenue. The most experienced and skilled at that time worked for these two institutions.
The administration of the newest state models in Europe
As the most qualified people of that era worked either for the Institution of the Supreme Court or for the Ministry of Finance, while other educated people of that era worked in the administrations of local rulers, in the operation of Courts, in the management of the King’s estate and in the administration of the Church the problem facing the newer models of the state of Europe was that there was not enough number of trained people to help in his administration.
When we say administration of the state we mean all those professional officials who will be entrusted with the tasks of central logistics by issuing specialized and very accurate in content orders and suggestions to all those who worked, e.g. in the courts, in the collection of taxes, in the management of royal property, in the communication with the Church, in the internal security, defense etc.. This central agency that was tasked with the administration of the state was named Ministry of the Presidency or Chancellery and was head of all state agencies.
The employees who worked at the Ministry of the Presidency or the Chancellery were the elite of the educated people of the time, especially those who were in the office of the Chancellor or Minister of the Presidency. The Pope’s respective Chancellery was a much higher standard and functioned as a model for the respective Chancellery of the secular power of the youngest Western European state models.
Because of this administrative organization of the newer models of States, there have been homogeneous political entities where their peoples lived and developed in a geographical area gaining more and more legitimacy and surviving on many generations.
All these momentous changes that emerged and constituted the institutions for the functioning of the newer state models in Europe took place until the middle of 13th Century.
In this competition spotlight different models of states that currently exist in Europe, the newest models of states of England and France equally are gaining precedence over all other models of states. How this is achieved, in what ways a state can be shaken, how the rivalries between bureaucrats and politicians at the expense of the state have worked, we will examine them in the third part of our analysis.
Thanos S. Chonthorgiannis
The law of Intellectual Property is Prohibited in any way unlawful use/appropriation of this article, with heavy civil and criminal penalties for the infringer.
