Reconceptualizing state formation as collective power: representation in electoral monarchies

Abstract

This article deals with the importance of collective power and value consensus among elites for medieval polity formation by analyzing electoral monarchies. State formation theory focuses on the monopoly of legitimate armed force and has pushed notions of consensus and collective power into the background. This article questions material and coercive theories of state formation and emphasizes polity formation through theories of power as collaboration and as the ability to act in concert. Royal elections had two major functions: (1) A transfer of authority that created trust and concord among elite groups and (2) constructing ideas of an abstract ‘realm’ that political actors represented and to which they were accountable in an ideational and symbolic sense. The article focuses on the Holy Roman Empire and Sweden.

Keywords:

• State formation
• representation
• collective power
• consensus
• monarchy

Acknowledgement

The author wishes to thank Björn Tiällén and Mats Hallenberg of the Department of History, University of Stockholm and Sofia Näsström for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Naturally, any mistakes or errors are the sole responsibility of the author.

Notes

1. These two flows resemble Ullmann’s (2010) description of the ‘ascending’ and the ‘descending’ views in medieval political theory of the flows of authority in society.

2. For performative language theory see (Austin and Urmson 1962; Searle 1969; Onuf 1998).

3. Later, the king of Bohemia did not take part in the elections.

4. Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte p. 1284.

5. My translation.

6. My italics and my translation above.

7. ‘… scheint nunmehr sicher zu sein, dass Ansätze einer Wahlkapitulation, der Gedanke die Regierungsgewalt des Gewählten an den Willen seiner Wähler zu binden, bereits in der ersten hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts gesucht werden müssen’.

8. Magnus Erikssons landslag Konunga Balk VII: ‘Syunde articulus er-at konunger aegher kirkinum ok klostrum-riddarum ok suenom-ok huars thera goz-hionum-ok alt gamalt frelse-vskaddom kronunnae reth-at haldae ok all gamul suerikis lagh-thön sum almoghin hauer m3 gopuilia ok samthykkio vidher takit …’.

9. If the king was unable to travel to Finland his oath would be repeated by the governor and the bishop of Åbo.

10. ‘[Trust] … makes the formation of systems possible and in return acquires strength from them for increased, riskier reproduction’ (Luhmann 1995, p. 129).

11. Also Ullmann (2010, pp. 175–183) discusses the communitas regni.

12. Concerning the political system of Poland-Lithuania see Davies (1981, pp. 321–372).