English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article analyses how notions of parliamentary sovereignty, were posited against universal principles of the separation of powers, using the debate in the Swedish Diet ( Riksdag ) in 1769 on the Act of Security as an example. The act was launched as an attack on the prevailing parliamentary sovereignty. Since the mid-eighteenth century, the  Riksdag  had established itself as the sovereign power in Swedish politics and its critics argued for the need of personal and material security. The analysis shows how egalitarian ideas and democratic elements became part of the political discourse. This article argues that this debate was decisive for the coming end of the Swedish Age of Liberty (1719–72), and that it exemplifies a political conflict between radicals and conservatives. It also shows how the debate was a battle for alternative paths of state formation. Either a strong state, dominated by elite groups with capacity to control policy, or a more participatory government, with traces of early democratization. The analysis draws on two key analytical concepts: the ‘rule of law' and ‘political participation’. In the debate, the rule of law became an instrument for limiting political participation when the aristocracy tried to strengthen its powers.

Radicalism in the old regime: the challenge of parliamentary sovereignty in Sweden, 1769–70