Magna Carta

　Decentralization was not a bad system. The decentralized country, which consisted of a number of feudal lands, was cultivated in every corner of the country and expanded agricultural land, resulting in a dramatic increase in agricultural output. And the people also developed a spirit of mutual trust and self-government through the fulfillment of bilateral contracts.
　But the decentralization had its drawbacks. Since all power in the decentralized country was divided among a number of feudal lords, the state and the people could not be united tightly, and thus, the national army and the national treasury could hardly be built. If this is the case, it would not be able to resist foreign invasions, to carry out major national projects, and to unify the will of the people. Therefore, decentralized systems were no longer applicable in turbulent times when the world was shaking violently.
　There are three reasons for the dismantling of the decentralized system. One was the advance of foreign states. For example, as mentioned above, this is the case in Japan at the end of the Edo period, or in the 19th century in medieval Germany and medieval Italy, which were invaded by Napoleon's army. In these cases, the national crises demanded a change in the state system. Therefore, it seems that any medieval state would have left its state system unchanged and continued the decentralized system for a little longer, if it had not faced a national crisis.
　Another reason for the dissolution of the decentralized system was the internal division of the king’s lineage. For example, it was caused by failed hereditary succession in the king’s lineage, or brothers or uncles joining in repeated ugly in-fighting over the throne at the time. The failure of the hereditary dynasty led to political turmoil and ultimately weakened the control of the royal family. As a result, the feudal lords ignored the king's instructions and orders, began to compete for territory, and proceeded with the destruction of the decentralization system. Such case was the in the latter half of the Muromachi period in the history of Japan.
　The third reason was also the national crises, especially internal conflict within the ruling class. For example, France in the 18th century. The Bourbon dynasty and the privileged class were at odds with each other over the policies of the king (removal of tax exemption rights), and their conflicts ultimately entangled the French people and led to the French Revolution. This revolution shattered decentralization.
　There is another special case of the internal conflict of a ruling class that dismantled the decentralized system. That is the case of medieval England. Firstly, the medieval era in England was extremely singular and completely different from that of Japan and western Europe.
　As already mentioned, in the 11th century, the Norman army conquered England, overthrew the ancient dynasty of England and established Norman dynasty. This was England's first medieval dynasty. The first king was William I, who divided the lands of England among the Norman soldiers. This marked land ownership rights.

Authenticated manuscript of the Magna Carta (1215)

　However, it should be noted that the only thing the king William did was to allocate fiefdoms to feudal lords, but he gave them little lordship. The king continued to hold full power of England. It was the decisive cause of the deterioration of the English medieval eras.
　Firstly, he gathered Norman soldiers from all over the state and forced them to swear allegiance to the king. This was military centralization, yet a clear violation of lordship. This is because the soldiers of a medieval state obey their feudal lord and pledge allegiance to that feudal lord. But the feudal lord remained silent in the face of such tyrannical acts of the king.
　The next thing the king did was to centralize the judiciary. All over the state, courts were held under the authority of the king, from murder to theft, and trivial disputes between people. People actively used it as a convenience. However, this too was unnatural in medieval society. The judicial and taxation power of each fiefdom essentially belonged to the feudal lords, but not to the king. It was the iron law in the decentralized state. Nevertheless, the king ignored their lordship and toured the state, repeating his trials. But the feudal lords remained silent as ever.
　In addition, the king took steps in the centralization of law enforcement. He used, unchanged, the law enforcement organization established by the former ancient king of England. The Norman king dispatched his law enforcement officials to various places to maintain order in the lands of the feudal lords. Of course, it was also a violation of lordship.
　Feudal lords originally managed their territory with their own knights, so there was a double rule within the territory. Then the feudal lords should have resisted it, but they accepted this, too.
　So how did this singular state rule come about? There are several reasons, one of which was the immature nature of lordship. Norman soldiers had only just started ruling the occupied territories, and they were new lords not accustomed to territorial control. It was extremely difficult for them to set up their own administrative and law enforcement organizations, and to establish their own territorial laws. The process of trial and error to those ends probably took quite a long time.
　What made territorial control even more difficult was the anger of the English peasants. Revolts by those conquered broke out all over the state. Before they could create new systems and organizations, feudal lords firstly had to subdue them. Therefore, the rule by the feudal lords was nearer to zero rather than immature.
　This precarious territorial control by feudal lords was the direct cause of the king's tyranny. It is not known whether King William I was a natural tyrant, but one thing is for sure; he was at least forced to stand in for his lords in the rule of England.
　But this was not the only problem. There was a fundamental cause for the singularity of the medieval era in England. For this tyranny was not confined to the early days of the Norman dynasty, but continued throughout the history of medieval England. Even after the feudal lords had matured and firmly established their own lordship, the tyranny of the king persisted. This was what made the medieval era in England special.
　By the 13th century, the feudal lords of England were matured, winning the conflicts with their people, and becoming self-sufficient rulers of their lands. It looked like a medieval state. But the king was still a tyrant. For example, King John (1166-1216) relentlessly undertook military campaigns and taxed the feudal lords, creating animosity with them. At that time, England had lost the war with France and was bankrupt. King John once again plotted to start a war, demanding that the feudal lords waged war and paid taxes.
　However, the feudal lords had been engaged in many years of war, were exhausted both physically and mentally, and were in financial straits. Moreover, they had been besieged by taxation and tax collection previously too, the purpose for which was not clear to them. At that point, the feudal lords were no longer silent. They refused the king's order and chose to confront him. They banded together, fought against the king with force, and won. They then took the unexpected opportunity to slam the king with the matters they had found habitually unsatisfactory. It was the Magna Carta.
　The Magna Carta criticized the abuse of royal power and aimed at restriction of it. It was a rejection of despotism, and radical for the king. The feudal lords sought to rid England of this ancient rule and turn it into a “medieval-like state”. In that respect, it can be said that the Magna Carta incident was a simple medieval revolution. King John reluctantly accepted this request of the feudal lords. (However, the king broke his promises a few months later.)
　The feudal lords of England were already well into the spirit of the medieval era and recognized the idea of bilateral contracts. Therefore, their Magna Carta perfectly depicted the essence of the medieval era. That was, the sovereignty of medieval kings was no longer absolute, the king and the lord are equal in the bilateral contract; therefore the king should practice the medieval principle of loyalty with protection. That was the purpose of the Magna Carta.
　In the medieval eras, the rule was that kings would ask knights to fight and peasants to pay taxes. Magna Carta required the king to observe this rule. Even so, when he wanted to demand to the knights not only a campaign but also a tax payment, he should explain the reason for the request to them and get their consent.
　 It was the first attempt to limit the king’s kingship. The feudal lords of England recognized the king’s right to taxation as before, but placed strict limits on its exercise. This was one of the most important advances in human history.
　By comparison, the feudal lords of 18th-century France were harsh, for they adamantly refused to pay taxes to the king. This difference arose from their different depths of medieval era.
　This claim of the Magna Carta was groundbreaking in history. It was the basis of democratic politics. All democracies today follow this prescript. Politicians must obtain the consent of the people (and their representatives) before using the tax money of the people. The budget committee that sits annually exists for that purpose.
　The Magna Carta also contained other claims such as the guarantee of people's right to life and property, compliance with laws, and the independence of cities. In the medieval world of that time, it was quite democratic. England's feudal lords were very familiar with the medieval spirit. It prohibited the abuse of royal power, gave legitimacy and fairness to the exercise of royal power, and recognized human rights.
　However, the relative nature of medieval royal power and the fair exercise of this power were taken for granted in medieval Japan and medieval France, and did not need reaffirming. That was because medieval Japanese people and medieval French people created their own medieval world. They developed bilateral contracts on their own accord, and they naturally acquired such ideas as a matter of course in the process of putting them into practice.
　The medieval eras in Japan and France began with the emergence of feudal lords who own land and take control of samurai and peasants. Then they chose a medieval king from among themselves. The first task of the medieval king was to recognize the ownership of the land controlled by the feudal lords as their domains. This is the common process of the establishment of a medieval state. Therefore, the king and the feudal lords naturally understood about the division of state power, the establishment of lordship, and culling despotism.
　The King of England, on the other hand, was insensitive to relativism, since he was not the king chosen by the feudal lords, but was their original ancient king. For that reason, he did not recognize any special value in lordship.
　This may stem from the unique past of the Normans. Before the Normans invaded England, they also invaded France in the 9th century. They occupied part of France, established the Duchy of Normandy, and lived alongside the French. This region is now called Normandy. The Norman king was already a king at that time and the Duchy of Normandy was an ancient state. Then, in the 11th century, they crossed the channel and attacked England. At that time, too, the king was already a king.
　The Normans living in France were exposed to the decentralized system that was already in place in France. It heralded a new era, and bilateral contracts of protection and loyalty were prevalent within France. Accordingly, both the Norman king and the Norman soldiers, sensing the new breeze of the era, likely aimed to establish a medieval state in England similar to the feudal state of France. After the invasion, in fact, the king immediately implemented land ownership rights and gave it form as a medieval state.
　The actual ruling system, however, was almost tyrannical, because the king was already a king and the crisis situation of an invasion necessarily served to centralize the system. As a result, division was limited to the land and the people, but did not extend to state power. The king had almost a monopoly on state power.
　Still, Norman soldiers aimed in all earnestness to establish a medieval state, and hoped to become true feudal lords with lordship. England, therefore, became an unusual state. It was a medieval state where a tyrant (ancient person) and a feudal lord (medieval person) were in direct conflict. It was a situation close to the ruling system of Louis XIV, which was called an absolute monarchy. Hence England in the 13th century was an immature medieval state, and at the same time a medieval state of just before its collapse at the end of a medieval era. This chaotic system continued for 400 years until the Glorious Revolution.
　Although the feudal lords suffered from the oppression of a tyrant, they fought to transform such an immature medieval state into a true medieval state. It marked a unique medieval revolution. At that point, they tried to rid themselves of despotism not by force of arms, but by creating a parliament and through parliament. This was also an endeavor particular to England. And the more tyrannical the king, the more active and mature parliament became.
　Feudal lords advocated medieval egalitarianism and continued to create policies that limited royal power in parliament, but in the 17th century they finally went beyond merely limiting royal power to abolishing it. The fight between feudal lords and the tyrannical king did not transform Great Britain into a genuine medieval state, but rather suddenly transformed it into a modern state. It can be said to have been a very special revolution, combining a medieval revolution and a modern revolution. In other words, it was a special revolution in which the first blow against despotism and the second blow were integrated. As a result, the king was deprived of royal power and became a state symbol. Parliament then became the ruler of Great Britain.（However, at the time, the king still held military power.）
　Britain's harsh and contradictory medieval rule fostered a strong belief in egalitarianism and liberalism in the people. Therefore, it was a product of their history that English scholars were the first in the world to advocate egalitarianism and liberalism, as modern ideas, and that the English people still have a strong commitment to equality in everyday life; they rave about whether things are fair or unfair.
　Egalitarianism as it was advocated in England, on the other hand, was almost alien to the Japanese people of the late Edo period. Because, Japanese people at the time had already earned a certain level of equality.
　Japan was peaceful for two centuries in the Edo period. The Tokugawa strictly forbade the samurai from using force, and East Asia was peaceful and free of war. Therefore, the Tokugawa neither faced any national crisis at all, nor struggled to raise a huge amount of money for the war. Naturally, the Tokugawa did not need to blackmail the feudal lords, nor did they need to strip them of their tax exemptions.
　The Tokugawa and feudal lords respected each other, had a strong relationship of trust. and jointly ruled Japan. Hence, under Tokugawa, divisionism rule functioned almost normally, and egalitarianism in medieval rule was widespread among the people.
　Still, in the latter half of the Edo period, both the Tokugawa and the feudal lords had financial problems and were indulging in the evil deeds of imposing heavy taxes on the peasants, but their financial difficulties were not as terrible as those of Western Europe.
　In addition, the feudal lords were not only those who oppressed the peasants, but also those who continue to grant peasant rights and protect them well, although they were also struggling financially. They did not shift the blame to the peasants, did not impose heavy taxes on them, but applied for loans to the rich farmers, wealthy merchants, or the Tokugawa family.
　Therefore, the tyranny of the feudal lords over the peasants in the Edo period was milder than in medieval England and medieval France. In fact, if the Tokugawa rule had been tyrannical and had caused so much suffering to the people, there would have been no 200 years of peace. It showed that the Tokugawa, the feudal lords, and the people almost kept the various forms of bilateral contracts and formed an order.
　Overall, Japan was peaceful, and social order was maintained. Therefore, people didn't think about killing a medieval king or expelling him from Japan at all. They were not bathed in boiling water, so to speak, but in lukewarm water. As a result, many Japanese people were enjoying freedom in village and town , so they hardly ever craved to freedom and equality.
　From the foregoing, it can be seen that there are two types of modernization revolutions. One is the type of England and France, the other is of Japan, Germany and Italy. The former is a revolution caused by one's own country, and the latter is a revolution initiated by another country. The revolutions in England and France were caused by the suffering and anger of the people, which was caused by the harsh tyranny of their medieval kings.
　On the other hand, the revolutions in Japan, Germany, and Italy were caused by anxiety and anger caused by the invasion of other countries. Germany and Italy were invaded by Napoleon's army, and Japan was forced to open its ports by the Western powers. They had to centralize the state system in order to survive, and this centralization led to the modernization of the state. That is, their modernization was not so much a fight against despotism as it was a national strategy for survival as a state.
　The modern era can only be established on the negation of the medieval eras. Originally, the people of Japan did not attempt to kill the medieval kings. However, in order to carry out modernization, the revolutionaries could not avoid the murder of the king or the symbolization of the king, because the medieval kings were the core of the decentralization system and an obstacle to establishment of democracy.
　Japan, Germany and Italy promoted domestic modernization. They introduced into their country forms of modern government, modern system of law, modern weapons, and modern industry, which had already been developed by the invaders. Because, those were also essential for their survival. And in the course of such political and social modernization, the egalitarianism and liberalism of the medieval eras gradually transformed into modern one.
　This concludes the explanation of the dismantling of the decentralized system and the destruction of the medieval era. Decentralized states no longer exist in the world of the 21st century. All states are centralized, gathering state power in a central government. And they have their own national flags.
　Today, there are two kinds of centralized states: one is the authoritarian centralized state, and the other is the democratic centralized state.Needless to say, the former is a country whose history has not evolved, and the latter is a country whose history has evolved.

100 years of Modern Revolution

　The Meiji Restoration was a revolution for the modernization of Japan. This revolution began in the late 19th century with the expansion of Western powers into Japan. It was a time when two centuries of peace were broken. The Edo shogunate accepted the Western demands of Japan to open the country, but could not find a clear direction for the country to take. The Shogunate's inaction made people anxious, and society was in turmoil.
　A small number of groups of the low-ranking samurai recognized the defects and weaknesses of feudal society and the advancement of democratic society, and thought that Japan should hasten modernization, and for this reason, they carried out an armed revolution. They overthrew the shogunate, expelled the shoguns and feudal lords from the political sphere, and surprisingly, they set their sights on the ancient king whose family had resided in solitude in Kyoto for 200 years, and put him on the throne.
　It stunned people. Because in the Edo period, most Japanese almost forgot about the existence of the king. The real rulers for them were shogunates and feudal lords.
　Japan lost its medieval king, which means that it lost the authority of Japan. Therefore, Japan sought a new authority. Because in order to abolish the decentralization system and establish a centralized system, or to unify the will of the people, Japan desperately needed a new ruler. Otherwise, Japan would remain a land of lawlessness and far from modernization.
　The revolutionaries skillfully carried out the idea that the ancient king would be the most suitable authority to quickly unify Japan. And it succeeded. No one condemned the restoration of the monarchy, and did not cause problems. Rather, Japan's modernization proceeded rapidly.
　The revolutionaries moved the ancient king from Kyoto to Tokyo (formerly Edo) and proclaimed him the ruler of Japan to the people and abroad. It was the Restoration. Yet the ancient king was still a symbolic king.
　As a matter of fact, he had no power. The ancient kings spent 200 years as scholars in Kyoto. They did not have the mighty military power, the wealth, or the large number of followers to control Japan. His retinue was only a very small number of nobles who supported the dynasty for 1000 years.
　The real power was in the hands of the revolutionaries. If the king plotted to become a real king with real power, he would have been dragged down immediately from the throne by the revolutionaries, and the other would have been chosen by the revolutionaries from the royal family and placed on the throne. This was the truth of the Restoration of monarchy in Japan.
　The next thing the revolutionaries did was to create a nation-state administratively. It was the consolidation of land, people, and power of the state. It was to unite all the territories and turn them into national land, to unite all the samurai, peasants and townspeople and turn them into Japan citizen, and to bring all the lordship together, turning them into state power and gather them in Tokyo.
　In the end, the feudal lords lost everything. This transformation of the century naturally led to bloody civil war. Many feudal lords resisted the revolution. They fought fiercely against the revolutionary army for two years in order to defend the Tokugawa and protect their vested interests. The result was the victory of the revolutionary army.
　The revolutionaries rushed to establish national autonomy. In 1889, a constitution was drawn up and elections were held. The National Assembly passed. Elected deputies made laws every year, deliberated and passed the state budget. It showed that popular sovereignty was fundamentally recognized and democratic institutions were steadily implemented.
　There were many human resources in Japan to implement these policies. During the Edo period, feudal lords and samurai ran their own fiefdoms throughout the country, which means that they acquired various knowledge, skills, and views on legislation, administration, and the judiciary. Therefore, on the occasion of the Meiji Restoration, many of them gathered in Tokyo and quickly ran the new government by demonstrating their strengths. It was a legacy of decentralization and one of the reasons for the success of the Meiji Restoration.
　The revolutionaries centralized the tax system. All taxes in the country were collected by the central government in Tokyo. And they changed the tax from annual tribute (rice) to money, and added income tax and liquor tax, which did not exist in the Edo period, as new taxes.
　A national treasury with enormous funds was born. The revolutionaries used it to set up parliaments and national banks, to create mints, silk mills, shipyards, and railroads.
　Flags and anthems were also created. The army and navy were founded, and military personnel were born to serve the state. The samurai who served the feudal lords disappeared. And a national cemetery was set up, where the martyrs of the war were mourned. In this way, Japan's centralization and modernization spread to every corner of the country.
　There were many human resources in Japan to implement these policies. During the Edo period, feudal lords and samurai ran their own fiefdoms throughout the country, which means that they acquired various knowledge, skills, and views on legislation, administration, and the judiciary. Therefore, on the occasion of the Meiji Restoration, many of them gathered in Tokyo and quickly ran the new government by demonstrating their strengths. It was a legacy of decentralization and one of the reasons for the success of the Meiji Restoration.
　For about a century, from the Meiji period to the Showa period (1926-1989), the modernization revolution in Japan was carried out by professional politicians and the public. In order to further democratize and establish the rule of law, improvements in parliamentary management, revision of election laws, equality of men and women, and civilian control over the military were successively enacted. And even now, in the 21st century, modernization is being examined, and its deficiencies are being corrected one after another.
　However, whether in Japan or in Western Europe, the transition from the medieval era to the modern era was neither easy nor simple. For what the revolutionaries did was rather close to tyranny; the modernization revolution was reforms full of contradictions;
　Here were a few examples: one was that the Meiji Restoration brought about oligarchy. The revolutionaries who overthrew the old regime remained in power for about 30 years without sharing power with others. It was not a democracy, but almost a tyranny. This system lasted, until the Diet was established and the activities of the members of the Diet got back on track.
　Another inconsistency about the revolution was the constitution. Because, it was almost the sovereign monarch, not democratic sovereign. The Meiji Constitution was a gift from the king to the people, but it was not agreed upon by the people themselves. The Constitution stipulated that the ancient king was the ruler of new Japan, had military powers, appointed a prime minister, and held trials in the name of the king.
　This constitution was like a despot's proclamation. Fortunately, however, politicians managed to run the country while carefully avoiding the tyrannical aspects of the constitution.
　This was because since the establishment of the National Assembly, politics had been conducted not only by revolutionaries but also by members of parliament, and the king did not intervene in it, but respected them and confirmed their decisions. That was, the king played the role of a symbolic king, but not a dictator. What was written in the Constitution was far from reality. The Meiji Constitution was abolished after World War II.
　Neither oligarchy nor the Meiji Constitution can be said to be democratic. But at the time, that was understandable. Because, things don't happen overnight. Japanese people who had lived under the feudal system until recently, were suddenly confronted with democratic politics. In order to understand and implement it, they needed a transitional period of at least 30 years, no matter how much they experienced village self-government. And 30 years was, in fact, a period necessary to put the constitution, parliament and elections in place. Hence, the oligarch politics and the constitution of a sovereign monarch might be said a kind of necessary evil.
　The enactment of the Meiji Constitution created another contradiction. At that time, Japan had two authorities: the ancient king and the constitution. Rather than being puzzled by this contradiction, Japan politically exploited these two.
　The enactment of the Meiji Constitution created another contradiction. It was that Japan had two authorities: the ancient king and the constitution. Rather than being puzzled by this contradiction, Japan politically exploited these two.
　When politicians wanted to unite the people heavily, they clearly asserted the king as absolute authority. It was to make the symbolic king a living god. It was the apotheosis of the king. The people came to fear the king rather than respect him, and swore absolute obedience to him. The king overwhelmingly stood above the law. It was especially noticeable during wartime such as the Sino-Japanese War, the Russo-Japanese War, and World War II. Japan soldiers risked their lives for the king to fight the enemy.
　On the other hand, in peacetime, especially in the peaceful period between the Russo-Japanese War and World War II, the people emphasized democracy and actively promoted the improvement of electoral laws, the activation of party politics, the movement for gender equality, and humanitarianism.
　In any case, the simultaneous existence of two authorities was a special phenomenon emerged in the early years of modern Japan. The apotheosis of the king disappeared after World War II, and the king reverted to the original symbolic king. Then Japan became a fully-formed country governed by law, with the constitution as the sole ruler.
　The author would like to introduce another contradiction of the revolution. That is, the revolutionaries created a new privileged class called the peerage class. The peerage system was hereditary, consisted of about 400 families, and lasted for 80 years. They were given a number of privileges and were clearly distinguished from ordinary people.
　The 400 families consisted of the three types of families that dominated the Japan for the last 2000 years. One was the house of the nobility that formed the ancient ruling class, one was the house of the feudal lords, the rulers of the medieval era, and the third was the house of the revolutionaries who devoted themselves to modernization. The houses of the nobility, in particular, had been uninterrupted for more than 1,000 years.
　The gathering of these three types of families was a great historical miracle. Perhaps it did not exist anywhere other than in Japan. And it showed properly that the history of Japan consisted of three parts: ancient, medieval, and modern.
　One of the privileges of the aristocracy was to be able to become a member of parliament without being elected. It means that the children of the peerage family belonged to the ruling class from birth. On the other hand, in order to become a member of parliament, ordinary citizens had to be elected. It was a state where ancient and modern were mixed in one country. Therefore, the peerage system greatly undermined democracy.
　The founding of the peerage was a policy that the revolutionaries had no choice but to adopt in order to quickly carry out the abolition of the feudal territories; it was to appease the feudal lords who lost everything. Therefore, it could be said that the peerage system was also indispensable for the smooth transition from the medieval era to the modern era. This status system ceased to exist after World War II.
　Such problematic modern revolutions can be recognized in any medieval state. In France, for example, democracy did not emerge immediately after the French Revolution. A military dictatorship under Napoleon appeared after the French Revolution, which was the exact opposite of democracy. Then, what appeared after the fall of Napoleon was also hard to call a democratic system. This marked the return of the monarchy and the Bourbon dynasty. The head of the Bourbon dynasty, Louis XVIII, reigned as the new ruler of France. It was quite different from the spirit of revolution. After the revolution, the French people once again accepted the rulers they had supposedly discarded.
　Napoleon was a paradox. As a standard-bearer of modernization, he recognized freedom and equality, modernized French administration, justice and industry, and actively pushed France into a modern state. But it is also true that he was a dictator. Not only did he invade western European states such as Italy and Germany, but he also gave the lands he had stolen as rewards to his loyal soldiers. It was like a medieval king’s behavior to distribute land ownership rights. Furthermore, Napoleon granted privileges to those soldiers, creating a new privileged class in France. It was like an ancient ruling system. Napoleon played three different rulers, ancient, medieval and modern, so to speak. It was truly a singular form of state governance.
　However, this jumbled history was experienced not only in Japan and France, but also in the new Italy and the new Germany, albeit to varying degrees. It was the specific chaos of the transitional period from the medieval to modern eras; an almost unavoidable process required for the great revolution of a nation. Within it, despotism, divisionism and democracy were intertwined, and rule of men and the rule of law were in conflict. It was the actual modern revolution that unraveled the confusion, put things in order, and established a democratic system. Therefore, the Meiji Restoration and the French Revolution were brilliant breakthroughs for the modern revolution, but at the same time they were accompanied by irrational and cruel aspects.

Medieval France and American Revolutiona

　Medieval France was a decentralized state. The state was divided into a number of feudal territories, and in each territory a feudal lord ruled over several villages and cities. But among the cities there were special cities. These were called privileged cities, independent of their feudal lords, and self-governed by the merchants and the artisans who were the protagonists of the city.
　Why, in France, were some cities independent, albeit few in number? The reason was that the city had a bilateral contract with the medieval king. Under a bilateral contract, the medieval king protected the city and gave it autonomy. Meanwhile, the city provided commercial taxes and soldiers to the medieval king in return. It was give and take. This relationship resembles the bilateral relationship between feudal lords and villages in the Sengoku period in Japan.
　Of course, medieval kings already had bilateral contracts with feudal lords, and then, later, kings entered into bilateral contracts with the booming cities. As a result, cities and feudal lords became equals under the medieval king. Feudal lords therefore could not control the cities, even though they existed in their territories. Freedom of the city was guaranteed.
　There were no dictators in cities. The people made the city law, made it the ruler of the city and practiced the rule of law. And they carried out self-government and strived not to lose their freedom and for that they put a lot of effort into uniting the city, and sometimes prepared armed forces by themselves, preventing the invasion of external enemies.

Medieval city in France

　Still, the autonomy of the city did not mean full democracy. Because, not all city dwellers were equal under the law. Only influential people who gained citizenship ran the city, but those who did not have citizenship were not eligible to participate in the running of the city. It was similar to the case of medieval Japan villages, and symbolically represented that the medieval eras were located between antiquity and modernity.
　Therefore, it can be said that the self-government of cities and villages in the medieval eras was indispensable for the establishment of democracy.
　The idea of democracy emanating from the French Revolution and the Glorious Revolution spread not only to European countries but also to Japan, Asia, and Africa. But, only a limited number of countries were able to accomplish the modernization revolution. It was only Japan and Western European countries.
　Apart from Japan and Western European countries, the only countries in the world that have established the rule of law are the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and a few others. These new countries were first founded by the people of England and Western European countries.
　In the 18th century, the United States was a British colony. One of the reasons colonizers came to America from Europe was that they wanted a new life, especially for them to escape poverty or despotism that prevailed in their home country.
　The American Revolution was a war for egalitarianism. The people in the new land, which was a British colony, was outraged that it was forced to pay taxes by its home country but was not given sufficient rights to commensurate it, and launched a war to win its independence. It was a fight against despotism that violated the equality of the two, as can be seen in the slogan of the time, "No taxation without representation." claimed by the Thirteen Colonies. In that regard, the Revolutionary War was the American version of the Magna Carta. Then they aimed to become a country governed by law and a democracy from the very beginning of the country's founding.

Picture of the Constitution of the United States of America

In 1787, the draft constitution was published, and
in 1788, the constitution entered into force.
In 1789, George Washington became the first president under the Constitution

　In 1775, the United States gained independence from England. And soon the Americans created a constitution as their ruler. In fact, the United States has not allowed a single dictator since independence. They hate tyranny and stubbornly pursue liberalism.
　At times, however, American society shows a ruthless face, which stems from the overwhelming faith in liberalism of the people, which without hesitation crushes egalitarianism at home and abroad. The United States, which once advocated the preciousness of egalitarianism, has changed dramatically. It is an American problem as well as a human problem since the medieval eras.

The World in the 21st Century and Two Ruling Systems

　Today, there are many despotic countries in the world. That is, for example, China and Russia. For more than 1,000 years, these people have never had sovereignty, and have lived in a society with limited freedoms and human rights.
　Chinese kinship and Russian nepotism are notorious. Relatives flock around the tyrant and authorities use their power for personal use, and quickly become wealthy. People obey men, not laws. Because the ancient people did not have their own laws for themselves. After all, the law is the order of a tyrant. Therefore, they have no choice but to use power as a code of conduct, and they rely on those in power.
　From a modern state's point of view, this is dishonesty and corruption, but in ancient states it is commonplace. And the wrongdoing and corruption of those in power is not exposed, because the accuser will be arrested or exiled.
　Both the judiciary and the media are obedient to those in power; there is no freedom of the press. Elections, too, are in name only in ancient states. Election laws are not followed, elections are mere tokens, and vote counting is often fraudulent. Candidates who defy authority are removed before the election or assassinated. This means that their members of parliament are subordinates of those in power, and parliament only exists as a formality.
　They lack experience in self-government, are not good at collective agreements, and are not prone to self-restraint and compromise. This means that it is difficult for the people to discuss and unite with each other, that is, a firm rule of law will not be established, and a true democratic society will not be born. And people obey those who have power, not the law. It is an ancient man-ruled world.
　Some politicians in democratic countries were optimistic about the democratization of ancient countries, believing that if ancient countries developed economically, they would transition to democracies. And democratic countries aided the tyrannical countries and actively cooperated in the modernization of their outdated industries.
　Unfortunately, however, the autocracy did not democratize. Rather, tyranny has been strengthened, people's freedom has become more and more limited, and international law has been outrageously ignored. It is today's Russia or China. That is, the problem is not the economy of the state, it is not the money, but it is the ruling system of the state and the spirit of the people.
　After World War II, many colonies around the world achieved independence and promulgated democratic systems all at once, full of hope, but today in the 21st century, their democracies take on a tendency to tyranny, and normal democracy is declining. In particular, the electoral system in support of democracy is often rigged, and the people's opinions are rarely reflected in politics, and the judicial system, which supports the rule of law, has been watered down and weakened.
　The Arab Spring (2010-2011) is interesting because it illustrates this. At the beginning of the 21st century, the people of the Arab countries overthrew the dictators by force of arms, aiming for democracy. The countries of the world applauded their revolution. However, unfortunately, no Arab country has advanced to democracy. Today, state rule in Arab countries has taken on a tyrannical color. For example, democratic development has stalled due to religious conflicts in the Arab world, the restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly, and the lack of transparency in the electoral system.
　Of course, democratization is not something that can be easily achieved in five or ten years. Over the next 30 or 100 years, Arab countries should pursue democratization in stages by realizing the separation of politics and religion, the separation of politics and the military, the cultivation of autonomy and law-abiding spirit, and the transparency of the electoral system. Otherwise, the Arab Spring would be nothing more than a replacement of old and new dictators, which would be recorded as one of the rebellions in the ancient country.
　There are democracies in the world that exist despite of this. For example, Turkey, India, South Korea, etc. These states are also states that did not pass through the medieval era, but frog-hopped from ancient to modern era.
　Turkey was an ancient state called the Ottoman Empire, India was an ancient state called the Mughal Empire, and the Korean Peninsula was an ancient state ruled by the Korean Dynasty. These ancient states perished during the colonial period under the influence of invading imperialist states in the 18th and 19th centuries. After that, through twists and turns, they achieved the status of democratic states.
　And now, in these states, there are no dictators, the people are sovereign, and parliament members make the final decisions in the parliament as the people's representatives. Elections are also being held correctly. In this way, it is possible for an ancient state to build a democracy without going through the medieval era. This is good news for humankind.
　However, there is one problem. Because, their rule of law is unstable, and their democratic politics often fails. The reason for this is that as these people did not experience a medieval era, they did not acquire a sufficient spirit of law-abidingness and self-governance. The same holds true for Russia and China.
　Thus, state systems such as Turkey's are contradictory: their state systems and organizations are largely democratic, while the national spirit remains ancient. Put simply, it is the opposition between democracy and despotism in a state, and the conflict between the two destabilizes their rule of law and democratic politics. Although not exactly the same, this chaotic situation is reminiscent of medieval England. And, it took England 500 years to overcome this turmoil.
　In that respect, Turkey, India, and South Korea are states that should be called quasi-modern states. It will take some time for their peoples to rid themselves of despotism and acquire sufficient rule of law and solid democratic politics. This is because a spirit of law-abidingness and autonomy cannot be obtained in a short period of time. Until then, they will swing unstably between the dichotomy of despotism and democracy. Not only do they swing unstably within the state, but also internationally: they sometimes side with democratic states, and at other times lean into the side of autocratic states.
　Turkey is troubled by the unity of politics and religion. This is because it has not achieved the separation of religion and state. The Ottoman Empire undoubtedly had many brave warriors (warriors equivalent to ancient warriors), but no medieval warriors entered the scene in Turkey who could expel the power of Islam.
　Turkish politicians try to separate politics and religion completely in an effort to modernize Turkey, while others adhere to the doctrines of Islam and argue that religion should dominate politics of Turkey and life. The conflict between the two, the so-called secularists and the fundamentalists, has repeated itself many times for more than a century, and each time it divides Turkey and causes social unrest. This is because freedom of religion is still not guaranteed.
　The separation of religion and state has not been achieved in India, either. So, even now, religious and sectarian conflicts are frequent, causing arson and gruesome murder. The greatest problem in India, however, is the caste system. India's constitution clearly denies the caste system, but in reality, Indian society is ruled by it. The caste system is a system of discrimination created by the victors in various battles that has been repeated for more than 2000 years to relegate the losers to the lower strata, with the victors occupying the top positions and forming the ruling class, while the losers sink to the lower strata of society as lowly people.
　Two thousand years of various combinations of winners and losers have created a complex hierarchy, resulting in today's caste system. And the caste system does not recognize Indian women as independent. Hence, egalitarianism has not been established in India, and the rule of law is tenuous. These ancient caste systems are still found in many ancient countries to varying degrees.
　Meanwhile, South Korea is plagued by Confucianism. Confucianism has dominated the Korean people ideologically for more than 1,000 years. The irrational teachings of Confucianism are still rampant in Korean society and prevent the establishment of the egalitarianism and realism of modern thought. This is the cause of much injustice, corruption and lies in their society.
　There is another weakness of Souse Korea. It is that people have not experienced the management of municipalities for the past 2,000 years, so they still don't realize the importance of collective consensus and cohesion, and therefore are not good at self-control and compromise and stubbornly continue to stick to their claims.
　As a result, even in the existential crisis of the country, the people of Korea do not exercise restraint, they do not compromise, and they do not aim for national unity. Thus, the country remains divided into two or three parts, creating a power vacuum. This pitiful situation often leads to the invasion of other countries. In fact, Korea once fell into a vassal state of China and a colony of Japan. The failure of national unity is a tragedy common to many ancient countries.
　From the above, then, it is difficult to say that Turkey, India, and South Korea are states governed by the rule of law. This is because the forces of religion, ancient discrimination, and ancient ideas still threaten these countries, and hence undermine realism and egalitarianism.
　Yet, they are certainly far superior to ancient states. They deny dictators and the people hold sovereignty. Also, they conduct elections legally.These are democratic affairs that are rarely practiced in ancient countries. This shows that it is possible for the ancients to directly transform an ancient country into a modern one without going through medieval eras. Then how do the people of Russia and China evaluate the modernization carried out by Turkey and other countries?
　The world today is divided into two extremes: the side of democracies and the side of despotic states. And that conflict is getting worse every day. The relationship between the two is fundamentally opposed. This is because democracies have historically been built on the denial of tyranny. Since those that deny it and those that are denied it stand side by side in the same world, it naturally leads to confrontation. They collide head-on.
　The polarization of the world is a tragedy. Humanity carries a heavy burden. And the conflict between the two sides cannot be resolved overnight. That is because the history of 700 years of medieval era is tearing the two apart. It is remarkable, though, the presence or absence of the medieval era determines the shape of the state.
　People (in modern countries) have spent a thousand years transforming the way they live their lives, from the way of life of slaves to the way of life of semi-free men and then to the way of life of free men. Needless to say, the free man’s way of life is the best way of life humanity has ever had. And humanity, without exception, wants everyone in the world to become a free person, because it would end global polarization and pave the way for human unity.
　There is one suggestion. That is, to set up five or six new International Courts of Justice in different parts of the world. Today, there is only one located in The Hague. For example, two courts in Asia, one in Africa, one in South America and one in Eastern Europe. These courts would mediate or judge local disputes. This proposal may be a half-measure, yet even so, is it not necessary to urge states to resolve their problems through discussion rather than force? That would be the spread of rule of law.

Peace Palace housing the International Court of Justice
(The Hague, Netherlands)

World Autonomy

　The problem of the world today is that there is no ruler in the world. Each country is independently self-governing and is not subservient to anyone. In this respect, the current world is similar to a decentralized society, but the current international society is different from the medieval society, because there is no ruler who is equivalent to a medieval king. Therefore, the world looks like a lawless land like the Warring States period in Japan.
　The United Nations, of course, is not the ruler of the world, and it has no power to guide or stop the nations of the world from doing so. The United States is the most powerful country in the world, but it is not the ruler of the world. Moreover, there has been an increase in the number of countries that are opposed to the United States recently, many of them are autocratic countries.
　Today, there is one naive and irresponsible theory about world governance. It is a theory that domestic governance is different from international governance. The government of each country is responsible for shaping its own social order, while the international community does not have a world government, so each country is autonomous in shaping the international order. In other words, world peace should be left to each country.
　But that's too optimistic. This is because it is inconceivable that all the countries of the world will form an international order with autonomy. If you look at the world today, you will understand it in an instant. Today, there are countries everywhere in the world that invade other countries, ignore human rights, ignore international law and treaties, or violate territorial waters and airspace.
　Moreover, many countries pretend not to know when they see their misdeeds, or some condemn them verbally, or the great powers wave the banner of justice as if they were crusaders and attack the country with force. However, none of these are permanent means of establishing world order. Therefore, the world will forever be full of conflicts, and peace will never come.
　This irresponsible theory of leaving the international order to each country should be purged from the world immediately. Domestic governance and international governance are the same, both require governments, rulers, who should be responsible for shaping the domestic order and the world order.
　As already mentioned, the ruler should not be a person, but a law. Because people are sloppy. Just as the Constitution is the ruler in a democratic country, the world needs a law as a ruler. It is a world law. It's like the peace decree issued by Hideyoshi in the 16th century. That is, the prohibition of the use of force, the encouragement of lawsuits, and the confiscation of weapons. and to reorganize current international law.
　In doing so, it is important that all laws clearly define penalties and that the armed forces to enforce those penalties are prepared. A law that does not have penalties and force to enforce them cannot be called law. Most of today's international law has no penalties and no force. That's the equivalent of a piece of paper.
　Countries should create a world army as a duty. It is an organization for enforcing penalties and acts as a deterrent against countries that invade other countries or violate human rights. Each country provides an army and constitutes a world force. In addition, each country enters into a bilateral contract with world law, which is an exchange of protection and loyalty. The World Army will kill all the bad countries that violate the laws of the world. It is a campaign for world law.
　Verbal condemnation is not a deterrent at all. It is to let international crime go unchecked. Deterrence should have substance. In fact, where is the country that would fight against the world army?
　Of course, the establishment of world laws and the creation of a world army are not easy feats. Still, isn't it time for humanity to do so? The world needs a ruler right now. If we look at human history, it is clear that order is created under strong and fair rulers, and that order is lost when rulers disappear. And its ruler is the law.

Historical Interpretation and Ruling Body

＜Gradual evolution of Japanese history＞

　This book has discussed medieval Japan in detail, but some readers may have tired of hearing about such abstract things as contracts, equality, and human rights. In this way it is very different from the usual history book. There are no thrilling medieval picture scrolls here.
　The above summarizes the explanations given previously in one table. It is the author’s hope that this summary will deepen understanding of the medieval era. The table shows the transition of ruling bodies in Japan history, that is, ancient ruling body, medieval ruling body, and modern ruling body.
　One thing this table shows is that the ancient era does not directly connect to the modern era. After the ancient era comes the medieval era, and after that, the modern era. History progresses step by step.
　For example, human relationships are established through three stages. Human relationships first existed as hierarchical relationships in the ancient era, then as lord-subject relationships in the medieval era, i.e., hierarchical relationships plus equal relationships, and finally they became complete equal relationships in the modern era. It is like a butterfly undergoing complete metamorphosis from larva, pupae, to finally a butterfly. It is like magic.
　Democracy also did not come into existence without passing through the medieval eras. The prototype of democracy was created by village autonomy and urban autonomy in the medieval eras. People have evolved it into a state-level autonomy, that is, democracy.
　Until now, the term "medieval revolution" has never existed in either Japan or Western historiography . This expression was coined by the author. But why has it not existed in historiography? Why did the great undertaking of this century, namely the liquidation of the ancient era and the construction of the medieval era, go unrecognized? Why has it been overlooked? That is a big question of historiography. An accurate picture of the medieval era and the concept of the Medieval Revolution should be included in history textbooks. If they acknowledge this medieval revolution, people will see the beautiful evolution of history with two revolutions and three histories, and will recognize the crucial differences between the ancient and the medieval eras, a vivid trajectory of transition from the ancient to the medieval eras and the essence of the medieval eras.

The Historical role of the Medieval Era

　Medieval Japan spanned 700 years from the 12th century to the 19th century. Meanwhile, medieval France spanned 800 years, medieval Germany spanned 900 years, and medieval England spanned 600 years.
　The historical mission of the medieval era was to abolish tyranny once and for all. Samurai, the protagonists of the medieval eras, twice struck tyranny. The first blow was done in the ｍedievalization revolution in the early medieval eras, to divide the royal power in royalty and lordship. This led to the weakening of despotism and to the emergence of medieval Japan with divisionism.
　The second blow was at the end of the medieval era, in the modernization revolution. Samurai drove out both tyranny and feudalism by force, and making the law the ruler of the state, and introduced democracy to Japan. It was the establishment of modern Japan.
　This process of destroying despotism divided Japan's history into three parts: ancient, medieval, and modern. In this respect, it can be said that the medieval era was an indispensable medium that combined the ancient and the modern, and completed the history of Japan.
　The most precious gifts that the medieval era gave humanity are thought to be the spirit of the medieval era. They are honesty, responsibility, autonomy, self-government and law-abiding, which form the solid foundation that underpins democratic politics and the rule of law. In fact, by having these spirits, the people can obey the Constitution, run the parliament to the fullest, and form a social order based on mutual trust.
　The essence of the medieval era is twofold. One is bilateral contracts, and the other is divisionism, both of which essentially created the medieval state and sustained it for centuries. Bilateral contracts were a major evolution of the ancient one-way contract, and brought about a medieval world with medieval egalitarianism, realism and human rights.

＜Bilateral contract＞

　Medieval bilateral contracts were canceled all at once in the Meiji Restoration, changed and became modern and sophisticated. A new bilateral contract was introduced and signed between the state and the people: the state protects its citizens, and the people fulfill their obligations to the state, such as paying taxes. Today's Japan is an extension of that.
　Another essence of the medieval eras was divisionism. The samurai divided the absolute possessions of the ancient kingdom, the royal land, royal people, and the royal power, into a number of fiefdoms, peoples, and lordships. And this division created the territorial system, the status system, and the lord and vassal system, which formed characteristic of the medieval eras.　

＜Divisionism＞

　The medieval divisionism was abolished in the Meiji Restoration, and the land, people, and state power that had been divided until then were combined into one under the newly established central government. It was to turn Japan from a decentralized country to a centralized country. Today's Japan is an extension of that.
　Well, why did the medieval eras appear only in Japan and Western Europe? That's a very interesting question. Let's consider the reasons for this at the end of this paper.
　First of all, what can be said is that the citizens of a despotic country and the people of a democratic country has the same qualities. Both have equal abilities in physical strength, intellect, and sensitivity. People are people. It doesn't make any difference.
　What separated the two, and what gave birth to decentralization only in Japan and Western Europe? The author thinks one of the reasons is geography. Japan and Western Europe are well-positioned countries to establish a decentralized system, while other countries are not.
　Japan is an island country away from the Eurasian continent, and the sea spreads between neighboring countries. This location is very advantageous in terms of national defense, because the sea functions as a strong fortress for Japan, making it difficult for neighboring countries to invade Japan.
　Western Europe is also bounded by the sea to the north, west and south, and the eastern side is covered with high and rugged mountain ranges and dense forests. This location isolated Western Europe from other countries, making it difficult for them to penetrate.
　Over the past 1,000 years, Muslim armies have made numerous attempts to invade Western Europe with little success. Parts of Western Europe were temporarily occupied, but the whole of Western Europe was not dominated. This was because the sea and the mountains stood as ironclad fortress in front of the great army.
　Therefore, for a long time, Japan and Western Europe were safe from foreign attacks. So, they didn't need national unity, and did not seek a centralized system of power. Thus, they were able to concentrate their energies only within the country.
　On the other hand, most of the countries of the Eurasian continent are connected to neighbors by land. There are no seas or mountains on the border. That's a big difference from locations in Japan and Western Europe. There are no obstacles on the border, which makes it easy for large armies to cross the border and invade. Therefore, the countries of the Eurasian continent should always have a sense of crisis and pay attention to the movements of neighboring countries. It was this that fixed their regime to a single system: centralization. Decentralization of the state was an impossible choice for them.
　But location isn't the whole reason. The question is when and how royal power was divided and not divided. First, let's take a look at the history of Russia and China.
　Rebellions have often occurred in the history of Russia and China. And the existing dynasty is defeated by one of the largest and most violent rebellions or the invasion of neighboring countries. In most cases, the ringleader of such a rebellion or an aggressor will be the next ruler.
　Then his army has the strongest and most soldiers in the country, and there is no one who can match him. Naturally, the ringleader is to be a national hero who follows the people, holding all the power of the state. He will become a despot in the country.
　And he will build a centralized state and begin tyranny. It is a state system in which he is the absolute sovereign and all the people are his subjects. This is the alternation of old and new autocracies, which is why decentralization system will not emerge forever in the ancient countries.
　In Western Europe, on the other hand, the power to overthrow the ancient dynasties was not born, since they had already self-destructed. For example, in the 10th century, France was a land of lawlessness, where no one with absolute power emerged, and instead many feudal lords rose to prominence, repeatedly fighting for land and power.
　Each feudal lord was a lone wolf who owned land, ruled over the peasants and did not bow to anyone. However, the problem was that there was no absolute person to decide on land ownership, so they had no choice but to protect their land with their own strength. It was a never-ending battle. They were no different from land thieves. In the end, they decided to recognize the limits of their power, stop strife and create an authority, that is, the king that would guarantee territorial ownership.
　It was the emergence of a king created by others. And he was completely different from the ancient king who took everything on his own, without needing the help of others.
　In order for him to ascend the throne, it was necessary to carry out the relief of the fiefdom. It was that the king had to relinquish his grip on all authority and shared state power with the feudal lords.
　Practicing self-control and cooperation, both kings and feudal lords gained independence, security, and order. It was the establishment of the decentralization system and the beginning of medieval France.
　(In the 10th century, the first king of medieval France did not declare his relief to the feudal lords in words or letters. This was probably due to the following circumstances; he was not a king who had seized the throne by force, but a king chosen by the feudal lords, and therefore he hesitated to give instructions and orders to powerful lords. However, surprisingly, it was in the 12th century that the kings clearly and unapologetically acknowledged their land ownership to the feudal lords. That was 200 years after the establishment of the dynasty. Because at that time, the royal family had strengthened its royal power and transformed into the true rulers of medieval France.)
　Japan had also established a decentralized system. It dated from the Kanto region in the 12th century. The feudal lords who were developing the lands of the Kanto region had the same conundrum as the lords of Western Europe. That's because there was no one in power in the Kanto region to guarantee the ownership of land. So, their independence was very, very uncertain, and precarious.
　What the feudal lords did in this situation was the same decision that the Western feudal lords would make. It was to make one of them their king. As a result, Yoritomo became the king of Kanto. The only way for Yoritomo to take the throne was to protect the feudal lords' ownership of land and allowed them to hold power.
　It was also mutual trust and mutual aid. Then order and security were brought to the Kanto region, and a decentralized system was established. It was the emergence of a whole new world. The samurai firmly believed in the decentralization system, as it gave them (medieval) independence and freedom. Naturally, they no longer accepted despotism and centralization accompanied by hierarchism in antiquity. History took a major turn. It was the strengthening of people's spirits and a big, big step in the evolution of history.
　These are the fundamental reasons why decentralization was born in Japan and Western Europe, and why it did not appear in other countries.

The End