Abstract
As the introduction to this volume explains, this book is about parliament as an idea, as a specific culture of doing politics and as a practice of representation, deliberation and procedure. It belongs to a recent tradition of parliamentary history that does not concentrate on ministerial responsibility and the power of parliaments, but rather on what a parliament actually was and what contemporaries thought that its purpose was or should be. This still rather new tradition studies debating practices as well as the culture of parliament and parliament as a concept. Although the new tradition is certainly not the exclusive focus of the present volume, it has helped the authors to further ‘historicize’ parliaments and to see interesting sides of parliaments that previously seemed to be insignificant or meaningless. Consequently, the ‘Ideal of Parliament’ appears in a new light. To start with, the ideal itself has changed over time; in the way we understand it now, it developed only fully during the nineteenth century. Jens Späth, writing about one of the earliest examples of a parliament in this book, the Cádiz Cortes (Chap. 3), says that ‘parliamentary discussion [at that time, still] served to persuade rather than to give account of measures’. The meaning and evaluation of parliamentary debates has changed—even though both persuasion and accountability have to a certain extent always been part of most debates. Parliamentary discussion has always had many purposes, and open discussion and representation of the people have always had to be balanced.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Examples from different national traditions: Nicolas Roussellier, Le Parlement de l’éloquence. La souveraineté de la délibération au lendemain de la Grande guerre (Paris: Sciences Po 1997); Thomas Mergel, Parlamentarische Kultur in der Weimarer Republik. Politische Kommunikation, symbolische Politik und Öffentlichkeit im Reichstag (Düsseldorf: Droste 2002), Andreas Schulz and Andreas Wirsching eds., Parlamentarische Kulturen in Europa. Das Parlament als Kommunikationsraum (Düsseldorf: Droste 2012) and other books in the same series; Pasi Ihalainen, Cornelia Ilie and Kari Palonen, eds, Parliament and Parliamentarism. A Comparative History of a European Concept (New York and Oxford: Berghahn 2016); Remieg Aerts, Carla van Baalen, Joris Oddens, Diederik Smit and Henk te Velde eds, In dit Huis. Twee eeuwen Tweede Kamer (Amsterdam: Boom 2015); Henk te Velde, Sprekende politiek. Redenaars en hun publiek in de parlementaire Gouden Eeuw (Amsterdam 2015).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
te Velde, H. (2019). Postscript. In: Aerts, R., van Baalen, C., te Velde, H., van der Steen, M., Recker, ML. (eds) The Ideal of Parliament in Europe since 1800. Palgrave Studies in Political History. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27705-5_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27705-5_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27704-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27705-5
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)