The French Senate is nowadays often presented by its critics as an institution that is conflicting with the principles of democracy. This raises questions about how this area of tension between...Show moreThe French Senate is nowadays often presented by its critics as an institution that is conflicting with the principles of democracy. This raises questions about how this area of tension between democracy and the second chamber has emerged and evolved throughout the history of the French political system. Bicameralism seems contradictory to the French political culture because the republican doctrine strongly believed in a single assembly. This research focuses on the first half of the French Third Republic (1870-1914) and investigates to what extend the Senate was considered to be compatible with democracy. How was it possible that a Senate -an institution that seemed to have lost its place in the French political landscape and was associated with aristocracy and conservative liberalism- obtained a place in the institutional framework of this republic which was so democratic for its time? In general, historians have shown little interest in upper houses. However, this thesis argues that in order to get a complete picture of the reasons behind the evolution of democratic institutions it is not enough to merely study political theory or constitutional law; one should also look at the reality of political practice. In order to understand how important historical events and national context in France were in shaping the debate about the relation between the Senate and democracy, the French case is put in an international comparative perspective with the discussions that took place around the same period in Belgium and The Netherlands. This research demonstrates that the French Senate of the Third Republic was not constructed against democracy, or simply as the representation of conservative forces. It rather was a very inventive chamber that served the interest of the Republican Party, promoted democracy and played an important role in the political education of the French countryside and its integration into the French nation. Secondly, it is argued that discussions about the legitimacy of the French upper house were to a very large extend determined by historical circumstances -such as the Boulanger crisis and the Dreyfus affair-, political opportunism, pragmatism, and specificities in the national political culture.Show less
This thesis undertakes a comparative analysis of the Roman Empire during the third-century 'crisis' (AD 249-284) on the one hand and the tetrarchic era (AD 284-324) on the other hand. As an...Show moreThis thesis undertakes a comparative analysis of the Roman Empire during the third-century 'crisis' (AD 249-284) on the one hand and the tetrarchic era (AD 284-324) on the other hand. As an analysis of the Roman Empire in all its aspects is obviously not feasible, the thesis limits itself to the three most important ones: first, Rome's wars against its external enemies; second, the internal instability that plagued the empire throughout this period; third, the empire's economic difficulties. After a short narrative chapter which serves to give a general chronological outline and introduce the key players, each of the three aspects is thouroughly discussed in its own thematic chapter. An important theme of the thesis is comparative historiography, which shows how there remains general agreement among historians that the tetrarchic era represents a significant improvement in the fortunes of the empire compared to the 'crisis' that preceded it. The thesis argues that, contrary to the general consensus, the tetrarchy only improved on the 'crisis' in some regards, while it did no better, and arguably even worse, on other points.Show less
Research master thesis | History: Societies and Institutions (research) (MA)
open access
In this thesis a systematic comparison between the writings of two prominent English polemicists is made, both of whom were active in the period 1618 and 1628: the Catholic Richard Verstegan and...Show moreIn this thesis a systematic comparison between the writings of two prominent English polemicists is made, both of whom were active in the period 1618 and 1628: the Catholic Richard Verstegan and the Puritan Thomas Scott, both of whom were in a religiously-tinted exile in the Low Countries in this period – the former in Antwerp, and the later in Utrecht. While of different generations and religious orientations, both urgently wanted to influence English public opinion on the continental conflicts of this period. Their polemics, such as Vox Populi and Londons Looking-glasse, are subjected to a comparative analysis. The goals and expectations of these polemicists in regards to the religious upheaval in Europe – such as the renewed conflict between Spain and the United Provinces and the escalating Bohemian crisis – are explored, as well as their subsequent appeals for war or peace.Show less
