Golden Liberty (Latin:Aurea Libertas;Polish:Złota Wolność[ˈzwɔ.taˈvɔl.nɔɕt͡ɕ],Lithuanian:Auksinė laisvė), sometimes referred to asGolden Freedoms,Nobles' Democracy orNobles' Commonwealth (Polish:RzeczpospolitaSzlachecka orZłota wolność szlachecka) was apolitical system in theKingdom of Poland and, after theUnion of Lublin (1569), in thePolish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Under that system, all nobles (szlachta), regardless of rank, economic status or their ethnic background were considered to have equal legal status and enjoyedextensive legal rights and privileges. The nobility controlled the legislature (theSejm—theparliament) and the Commonwealth'selected king.
This political system, unique in Europe, stemmed from the consolidation of power by theszlachta (noble class) over other social classes and over themonarchicalpolitical system. In time, theszlachta accumulated enough privileges (established by theNihil novi Act (1505),King Henry's Articles (1573), and variousPacta conventa) that no monarch could hope to break theszlachta's grip on power.
The political doctrine of the Commonwealth of the Two Nations was "our state is a republic under the presidency of the King".ChancellorJan Zamoyski summed up this doctrine when he said that "Rex regnat sed non gubernat" ("The King reigns and does not govern").[1] The Commonwealth had a parliament, the Sejm, as well as aSenat and an elected king. The king was obliged to respect citizens' rights specified inKing Henry's Articles as well as inpacta conventa negotiated at the time of his election.
The monarch's power was limited, in favour of the sizable noble class. Each new king had to subscribe to King Henry's Articles, which were the basis of Poland's political system and included almost unprecedented guarantees ofreligious tolerance. Over time, King Henry's Articles were merged with the pacta conventa, specific pledges agreed to by the king-elect. From then on, the king was effectively a partner with the noble class and was always supervised by a group ofsenators. The doctrine had ancient republican thought at its roots, which was then reapplied with varying success to an elective monarchy's political reality.[2]
The foundation of the Commonwealth's political system, the "Golden Liberty" (Polish:Złota Wolność, a term used from 1573), included the following:
The Commonwealth's political system is difficult to fit into a simple category, but it can be tentatively described as a mixture of these:
The "Golden Liberty" was a unique and controversial feature of Poland's political system. It was an exception, characterized by a strong aristocracy and a feeble king, in an age whenabsolutism was developing in the stronger countries of Europe, but the exception was characterized by a striking similarity to certain modern values.[5] At a time that most European countries were headed towardcentralization,absolute monarchy and religious and dynastic warfare, the Commonwealth experimented withdecentralization,[4]confederation andfederation, democracy,religious tolerance and evenpacifism. Since the Sejm usually vetoed a monarch's plans for war, it was a notable argument for thedemocratic peace theory.[6] The system was a precursor of the modern concepts of broaderdemocracy[7] andconstitutional monarchy[8][9][10] as well asfederation.[4] Theszlachta citizens of the Commonwealth praised the right of resistance, the social contract, the liberty of the individual, the principle of government by consent, the value of self-reliance, all widespread concepts found in the modern, liberal democracies.[5] Just like liberal democrats of the 19th and 20th centuries, the Polish noblemen were concerned about the power of the state.[11] The Polish noblemen were strongly opposed to the very concept of theauthoritarian state.[12]
Perhaps the closest parallels to Poland's 'Noble Democracy' can be found outside Europe altogether, in America, among theslave-owning aristocracy ofSouthern United States, where slave-owning democrats and founding fathers of the US, such asThomas Jefferson orGeorge Washington, had many values in common with the reformist noblemen of the Commonwealth.[13] However, the comparison is very weak, as the so-called Southern aristocracy was not limited to a hereditary caste; the social structure, based simply on the acquisition (or loss) of wealth and property, was fluid; and there was of course no monarchy or nobility in the United States.
Others however criticize the Golden Liberty, pointing out it was limited only to the nobility, excluding peasants or townsfolk[14] and gave no legal system to grantfreedom andliberty to the majority of the population, failing them by failing to protect them from the excesses of the nobility, resulting in the slow development of cities and thesecond serfdom among the peasants.[15] The Commonwealth was calledNoble's Paradise, sometimes—the Jewish Paradise, but alsoPurgatory for the Townsfolk (Burghers) andHell for the Peasants.[16] And even among the nobility (szlachta), the Golden Liberty became abused and twisted by the most powerful of them (magnates).[14][17] However, this "the Jewish Paradise, but also Purgatory for the Townsfolk and Hell for the Peasants" was a statement of social satire, and it should be evaluated whether it reflected the fact of the age. A number of Russian peasants fled from their far more brutal lords to settle in liberal Poland,[18] which might stand out as example of counterevidence to the "Hell for the Peasants" claim.
In its extreme, the Golden Liberty has been criticized as being responsible for "civil wars and invasions, national weakness, irresolution, and poverty of spirit".[19] Failing to evolve into the "modern" system of anabsolutist andnational monarchy, the Commonwealth suffered a gradual decline down to the brink ofanarchy because ofliberum veto[17] and otherabuses of the system. With the majority of theszlachta believing that they lived in the perfect state, too few questioned the Golden Liberty and theSarmatism philosophy until it was too late.[20] With theszlachta refusing to pay taxes for a larger and modern army and magnates bribed by foreign powers paralyzing the Commonwealth political system,[21][22] the Commonwealth was unable to keep up with its increasingly militarized and efficient (throughbureaucratization) neighbors,[23] becoming a tempting target for foreign aggression. It was eventuallypartitioned and annexed by stronger absolutist neighboring countries in the late-18th-centurypartitions of Poland.[10][24]
The Golden Liberty created a state that was unusual for its time, but somewhat similarpolitical systems existed in other contemporary states, like theRepublic of Venice.[25] (Both states were styled the "Most Serene Republic".[26])
A similar fate was averted by Italy; first due to a secular inability of the kings of France and Spain, and the Papacy, to come to terms on how to divide the country, then through the reaction againstAustrian domination which, as late as 1861, finally aligned most of the country's states in support of a national monarchy under KingVictor Emmanuel II of theHouse of Savoy, hitherto king ofSardinia.
Notably, neither the Republic of Venice nor Italy had aliberum veto among their institutions.
Theszlachta's rights and privileges becameproverbial:
Szlachcic na zagrodzie
równy wojewodzie
—literally,
"The noble on his estate
is equal to thevoivode"
or, preserving the Polish original'srhyme scheme:
"The noble behind his garden wall
is the province governor's equal."
To this day, in Poland, this means that a free man (a better sense, today, forszlachcic) regards no man as his superior.
