title: Political history in the United States

abstract: Political history in the United States covers the historiography or the methods used by political historians, political scientists, and other scholars in analyzing the history of politics in the United States.

text:
# Political history in the United States

**Political history in the United States** covers the historiography or the methods used by political historians, political scientists, and other scholars in analyzing the history of politics in the United States.

## Traditional political history

Around 1880-1920 wide-ranging non-academic historians such as George Bancroft and James Ford Rhodes focused on durable institutions, especially the presidency, Congress, and the two main political parties. Traditional political history focused on major leaders and long played a dominant role beyond academic historians in the United States. The popularity of these writers was due to their literary style, storytelling abilities, and their willingness to draw lessons from history for the reader. They examined constitutions, platforms, rhetoric, and legislation to determine what was good or bad for the country. They excelled at biography and revealed the strengths, passions, and fatal flaws of historical figures. Modern scholarship is hesitant to make judgments about what "should" have been done at critical moments, and those who do base their judgments on the values of historical actors rather than specific actions.

Starting with Edward Channing at Harvard in the early 20th century, the new university departments of history adopted much of the old style. What was new was a demand for finished PhD dissertations, a deemphasis on drama and color, and an insistence on using primary sources, as tracked through footnotes. The academics wrote for each other, with tenure as a reward, not for sales to a popular audience. These studies of U.S. political history accounted for about 25% of all the scholarly books and articles written by American historians before 1950, and about 33% into the 1960s, followed by books and articles on diplomacy.

### Biographies

Political biographers tended to be more inclined towards moralizing judgments compared to other political historians. However, before the mid-1920s, scholarly biography was not a widely popular genre in the United States. It wasn't until Allen Johnson, Dumas Malone, and the editorial board of the Dictionary of American Biography enlisted hundreds of academic historians to write brief articles on notable figures that scholarly biography gained momentum. Allan Nevins, a prominent contributor to the Dictionary, wrote prize-winning full-length biographies and also initiated a successful series of political biographies in the 1930s. The title of Nevins' most outstanding work, *Grover Cleveland: a Study in Courage,* epitomized the moralizing tendency of the genre, while arguing that heroes had to be understood in their deeper historical context. By the late 1940s numerous accomplished scholars had launched multi-volume biographies of significant political figures, intending to illustrate how men maintained a balance between power and responsibility, rather than describing the moral essence of politics.

Political scientists have very largely avoided biography. However in their studies of leadership, especially presidents and prime ministers, they have given some attention to the careers and political skills of leaders.

### Charles Beard's economic interpretation

By the 1950s, Beard's economic interpretation of history had fallen out of favor; only a few prominent historians held to his view of class conflict as a primary driver in American history, such as Howard K. Beale and C. Vann Woodward. Still, as a leader of the "progressive historians", or "progressive historiography", Beard introduced themes of economic self-interest and class conflict regarding the adoption of the Constitution His study of the financial interests of the drafters of the United States Constitution (*An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution*) seemed radical in 1913 since he proposed that it was a product of economically-determinist landholding Founding Fathers. He saw ideology as a product of economic interests.

#### Beard's Constitution

The historian Carl L. Becker's *History of Political Parties in the Province of New York, 1760–1776* (1909) formulated the progressive interpretation of the American Revolution. He said that there were two revolutions: one against Britain to obtain home rule and the other to determine who should rule at home.

Beard argued in his works *An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States* (1913) and *An Economic Interpretation of Jeffersonian Democracy* (1915) that the Constitution was set up by rich bondholders against farmers and planters. According to Beard, the Constitution was designed to reverse the democratic tendencies unleashed by the Revolution among the common people, especially farmers and debtors. Beard's interpretation was challenged by historians who argued that economic interests were decisive but that Beard had misinterpreted the economic interests involved. Instead of two conflicting interests, critics identified dozens of different economic interests operating at cross purposes, which forced the delegates to bargain.

By the 1950s, Beard's economic interpretation of history, which emphasized economic self-interest and especially class conflict as drivers of historical events, was rejected by the great majority of historians. By the 1980s it was replaced chiefly by the notion that a new idea republicanism swept the colonies and caused the Patriots to reject rule by the British monarchy and aristocracy.

### New political history

The arrival in the 1960s and 1970s of a new interest in social history led to the emergence of the "new political history" which saw young scholars put much more emphasis on the voters' behavior and motivation, rather than just the politicians. It relied heavily on quantitative methods to integrate social themes, especially regarding ethnicity and religion. The new social science approach was a harbinger of the fading away of interest in Great Men.

### Decline in late 20th century

The eclipse of traditional political approaches during the 1970s was a major shock, though diplomatic history fell even further. It was upstaged by social history, with a race/class/gender model. The number of political articles submitted to the *Journal of American History* fell by half from 33% to 15%. Patterson argued that contemporary events, especially the Vietnam War and Watergate, alienated younger scholars away from the study of politicians and their deeds. Political history never disappeared, but it never recovered its dominance among scholars, despite its sustained high popularity among the reading public. Some political historians made fun of their own predicament, as when William Leuchtenburg wrote, "the status of the political historians within the profession has sunk to somewhere between that of a faith healer and a chiropractor. Political historians were all right in a way, but you might not want to bring one home to meet the family." Others were more analytical, as when Hugh Davis Graham observed:

The ranks of traditional political historians are depleted, their assumptions and methods discredited, along with the Great White Man whose careers they chronicled.

According to Michael Kazin, in the 21st century scholars have moved away from solely studying the American side of US politics and instead have adopted a "transnational" perspective, challenging the idea that the US is disconnected from global political trends. Historians now apply a broader definition of politics, including popular ideology, social movements, war, education, crime, sexuality, and the reciprocal influence of mass culture. Scholars from other fields, such as political science and law, have also shown an increasing interest in American history, and books about past presidents and politics are popular.

## Antipartisanship

According to historian Stuart M. Blumin Americans show a long history of antiparty sentiment from the Constitution's ratification to the 21st century. Initially, the Founding Fathers criticized the idea of organized competitive political parties. Such parties contradicted classical republican principles of virtuous leaders acting in the public interest rather than selfish gain. Nevertheless, parties emerged in the mid-1790s in the form of the Federalist Party led by Alexander Hamilton, versus the Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Scholars call it the First Party System. After 1800, the Federalist steadily weakened, especially in the west and South, while the Republicans, or Democratic - Republican Party- became increasingly dominant. By the 1830s and 1840s, the Second Party System became dominant, with the new Democratic Party showing a small advantage over the new Whig party. Anti party partisan sentiment was a strong factor among the Whigs, while the Democrats emphasized loyalty to the party standard and rewarded compliance. However, the growing emphasis on patronage eroded the republican character of each party, leading to political corruption which stimulated anti-party sentiments. In the 21st century conventional anti-party themes remain compelling in political discourse, with a growing trend towards independent voter registration and nonpartisanship.

1. James T. Patterson, "The Persistence of Political History" in Richard S. Kirkendall, ed. *The Organization of American Historians and the Writing and Teaching of American History* (2011) pp 67-74; his statistical estimates appear on pp 70, 72
2. Historians in Britain were much more involved in biographies. see Melanie Nolan, *Biography: An Historiography* (Taylor & Francis, 2023) ch. 1.
3. Ray Allen Billington, ed. *Allan Nevins on History* (1975) pp. 168–180
4. \>Michael Kraus, *The Writing of American History* (University of Oklahoma Press 1953) pp. 315–344.
5. Lewis J. Edinger, "Political science and political biography: reflections on the study of leadership (I)."  *Journal of Politics* 26.2 (1964): 423-439 and "Political science and political biography (II): Reflections on the study of leadership." *Journal of Politics* 26.3 (1964): 648-676.
6. P.A.W. Rhodes,and Paul t'Hart, eds. *The Oxford Handbook of political leadership* (2014), pp. 314–327. excerpt
7. Fred I. Greenstein, *The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Barack Obama* (3rd. ed. 2009) excerpt
8. Peter J. Coleman, "Beard, McDonald, and economic determinism in American historiography." *Business History Review* 34.1 (1960): 113-121. online
9. Hofstadter, Richard (1968). *The Progressive Historians*. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. pp. 207–226. ISBN 9780307809605.
10. Daniel T. Rodgers, "Republicanism: the Career of a Concept." *Journal of American History* 79.1 (1992): 11-38. online
11. Allan G. Bogue, "United States: The 'new' political history." *Journal of Contemporary History* (1968) 3#1 pp: 5-27. in JSTOR
12. Allan G. Bogue, "The new political history in the 1970s." in Michael G. Kammen, ed., *The Past Before Us: Contemporary Historical Writing in the United States* (1980) pp: 231-251.
13. Robert P. Swierenga, "Ethnocultural political analysis: a new approach to American ethnic studies," *Journal of American Studies* (1971) 5#1 pp: 59-79.
14. James T. Patterson, "The Persistence of Political History" in Richard S. Kirkendall, ed. *The Organization of American Historians and the Writing and Teaching of American History* (2011) pp 67-74; his statistical estimates appear on pp 70, 72
15. William Leuchtenburg, "The Pertinence of Political History: Reflection on the Significance of the State In America," *Journal of American History* (Dec. 1986) 73:585-600 in JSTOR
16. Hugh Davis Graham, "The stunted career of policy history: a critique and an agenda." *The Public Historian* (1993): 15-37. in JSTOR
17. Michael Kazin, ed. *The Concise Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History* (2011), pp. vii to viii.
18. Stuart M. Blumin, "Antiparty sentiment" in Michael Kazin, ed. *The Concise Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History* (2011), pp 20–21.

## Further reading

* Baer, Michael A. et al. eds. *Political Science in America: Oral Histories of a Discipline* (University Press of Kentucky, 2015). ISBN 978-0-8131-6187-7.
* Bogue, Allan G. "United States: The 'new' political history." *Journal of Contemporary History* (1968) 3#1 pp: 5–27. in JSTOR.
* Brinkley, Alan. "The Challenges and Rewards of Textbook Writing: An Interview with Alan Brinkley". *Journal of American History* 91#4 (2005): 1391–97 online; focus on political history.
* Burnham, Walter Dean. "Pattern Recognition and “Doing” Political History: Art, Science, or Bootless Enterprise?." in *The Dynamics of American Politics* (1994) pp. 59-82.
* DeNovo, John A. "Edward Channing's 'Great Work' Twenty Years After." *Mississippi Valley Historical Review* 39#22 ( 1952) pp 257–274. in JSTOR
* Gillon, Steven M. "The future of political history". *Journal of Policy History* 9.2 (1997): 240–255, in USA.
* Graham, Hugh Davis. "The stunted career of policy history: a critique and an agenda". *Public Historian* 15.2 (1993): 15–37; policy history is a closely related topic online.
* Higham, John. *History: Professional scholarship in America* (1965).
* Jacobs, Meg, William J. Novak, and Julian Zelizer, eds. *The democratic experiment: New directions in American political history* (Princeton UP, 2009).
* Jensen, Richard J. "Historiography of American Political History" in Jack Greene, ed., *Encyclopedia of American Political History* (Scribner's, 1984), vol 1. pp 1–25 online
* Jensen, Richard. "The Changing Shape of Burnham's Political Universe," *Social Science History* 10 (1986) 209-19 in JSTOR
* Kazin, Michael, ed. *The Concise Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History* (2011)
* Kraus, Michael, and David D Joyce. *The writing of American history* (3rd ed. University of Oklahoma Press, 1985).
* Lambert, Frank. *Religion in American politics: A short history* (Princeton UP, 2008).
* Larson, John Lauritz, and Michael A. Morrison, eds. *Whither the Early Republic: A Forum on the Future of the Field* (U of Pennsylvania Press, 2012).
* Leuchtenburg, William E. "The Pertinence of Political History: Reflections on the Significance of the State in America", *Journal of American History* 73, (1986), 585–600. online
* Newman, Richard. "Bringing Politics Back in... to Abolition." *Reviews in American History* 45.1 (2017): 57–64.
* Silbey, Joel H. "The State and Practice of American Political History at the Millennium: The Nineteenth Century as a Test Case". *Journal of Policy History* 11.1 (1999): 1–30.
* Swirski, Peter (2011). *American Utopia and Social Engineering in Literature, Social Thought, and Political History*. New York, Routledge.


title: Pollex angustiae

abstract: Pollex angustiae is a moth of the family Erebidae first described by Michael Fibiger in 2007. It is known from Sumatra.

text:
# Pollex angustiae

***Pollex angustiae*** is a moth of the family Erebidae first described by Michael Fibiger in 2007. It is known from Sumatra.

* Fibiger, Michael (2007). "Revision of the Micronoctuidae (Lepidoptera: Noctuoidea). Part 1, Taxonomy of the Pollexinae" (PDF). *Zootaxa*. **1567**: 1–116.

## InfoBox

| *Pollex angustiae* | |
| --- | --- |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Arthropoda |
| Class: | Insecta |
| Order: | Lepidoptera |
| Superfamily: | Noctuoidea |
| Family: | Erebidae |
| Genus: | *Pollex* |
| Species: | ***P. angustiae*** |
| Binomial name | |
| ***Pollex angustiae***<br>Fibiger, 2007 | |
|


title: Guillaume Cyr

abstract: Guillaume Cyr is a Canadian actor from Quebec. He is most noted for his performance as Horace Barré in the 2013 film Louis Cyr, for which he won the Jutra Award for Best Supporting Actor at the 16th Jutra Awards in 2014. He has been a nominee in the same category on two other occasions, at the 19th Quebec Cinema Awards for The New Life of Paul Sneijder and at the 24th Quebec Cinema Awards in 2022 for The Time Thief, and a Best Actor nominee at the 25th Quebec Cinema Awards in 2023 for Family Game. Originally from Sainte-Marie, Quebec, he is a graduate of the National Theatre School of Canada. His other roles have included the films Babine, Wetlands (Marécages), Laurentia (Laurentie), Small Blind, Miraculum, The Decline, Bungalow, Lucy Grizzli Sophie and Sisters and Neighbors!, and the television series Le berceau des anges, Fatale-Station, Les Beaux malaises, GAME(R), Epidemic, Léo and La Confrèrie.

text:
# Guillaume Cyr

**Guillaume Cyr** (born February 27, 1982) is a Canadian actor from Quebec. He is most noted for his performance as Horace Barré in the 2013 film *Louis Cyr (Louis Cyr, l'homme le plus fort du monde)*, for which he won the Jutra Award for Best Supporting Actor at the 16th Jutra Awards in 2014.

He has been a nominee in the same category on two other occasions, at the 19th Quebec Cinema Awards for *The New Life of Paul Sneijder (La nouvelle vie de Paul Sneijder)* and at the 24th Quebec Cinema Awards in 2022 for *The Time Thief (L'Arracheuse de temps)*, and a Best Actor nominee at the 25th Quebec Cinema Awards in 2023 for *Family Game (Arsenault et fils)*.

Originally from Sainte-Marie, Quebec, he is a graduate of the National Theatre School of Canada.

His other roles have included the films *Babine*, *Wetlands (Marécages)*, *Laurentia (Laurentie)*, *Small Blind (La mise à l'aveugle)*, *Miraculum*, *The Decline (Jusqu'au déclin)*, *Bungalow*, *Lucy Grizzli Sophie* and *Sisters and Neighbors! (Nos belles-sœurs)*, and the television series *Le berceau des anges*, *Fatale-Station*, *Les Beaux malaises*, *GAME(R)*, *Epidemic*, *Léo* and *La Confrèrie*.

## InfoBox

| Guillaume Cyr | |
| --- | --- |
|  | |
| Born | (1982-02-27) February 27, 1982<br>Sainte-Marie, Quebec |
| Nationality | Canadian |
| Occupation | actor |
| Years active | 2000s-present |
| Known for | *Louis Cyr*, *The New Life of Paul Sneijder*, *The Time Thief* |


title: Poems (William Carlos Williams)

abstract: Poems is an early self-published volume of poems by William Carlos Williams. It was published in Rutherford, New Jersey in 1909. The name William C. Williams is used for the cover and copyright notice, and W. C. Williams for the title page. The book is printed on Old Stratford paper.

text:
# Poems (William Carlos Williams)

***Poems*** is an early self-published volume of poems by William Carlos Williams. It was published in Rutherford, New Jersey in 1909. The name William C. Williams is used for the cover and copyright notice, and W. C. Williams for the title page. The book is printed on Old Stratford paper.

## Table of contents

* Innocence
* To Simplicity
* June
* Ballad of Time and the Peasant
* To His Lady with a Queer Name
* The Uses of Poetry
* The Quest of Happiness
* July
* Imitations
* Love
* To a Friend
* To My Better Self
* A Street Market, N. Y., 1908.
* September
* The Loneliness of Life
* Wistfull in Idleness
* On Thinking of a Distant Friend
* To a Lady
* To The Unknown Lady
* November
* On a Proposed Trip South
* The Folly of Preoccupation
* The Bewilderment of Youth
* The Bewilderment of Age
* Hymn to the Spirit of Fraternal Love
* Hymn to Perfection


title: Polyvinyl Record Co. discography

text:
# Polyvinyl Record Co. discography

The following is a list of releases by Polyvinyl Record Co. Polyvinyl Record Co. was established in 1995 and has since put out more than 350 records.

## 2023

## 2022

## 2021

* IAN SWEET \- *Show Me How You Disappear* (PRC-428)
* Xiu Xiu \- *OH NO* (PRC-426)
* MAN ON MAN - *MAN ON MAN* (PRC-432)

## 2020

## 2019

## 2018

## 2017

## 2016

## 2015

## 2014

## 2013

## 2012

## 2011

## 2010

## 2009

## 2008

## 2007

## 2006

## 2005

## 2004

## 2003

## 2002

## 2001

## 2000

## 1999

## 1998

* Braid \- *Frame and Canvas* (PRC-018)
* Paris, Texas - *Paris, Texas* (PRC-020)
* American Football \- *American Football EP* (PRC-019)
* Calvin Krime - *3 x 3 for 3 1/2* (PRC-021)
* Sean Na Na - *...and His Baby Blue* (PRC-023)
* Braid/Burning Airlines - *Braid/Burning Airlines* (PRC-022)

## 1997

## 1996

* Braid \- *Rainsnowmatch* (PRC-004)
* Various Artists - *Direction* (PRC-007)
* Braid \- *I'm Afraid of Everything* (PRC-008)
* Rainer Maria \- *Rainer Maria* (PRC-009)
* Days in December/Sweater Weather - *Days in December/Sweater Weather* (PRC-010)
* Ativin \- *Pills vs. Planes* (PRC-011)

## 1995

* Back of Dave/Walker - *Back of Dave/Walker* (PRC-003)

## Mail Order Only Releases

## Picture Disc Editions


title: Political history of Finland

abstract: This article deals with the political history of Finland from prehistoric times, through the Swedish rule (c.1200-1808), to the Russian rule and the time of independent Finland (1917-). In this context, Finland broadly refers to the geographical area in which the current Finnish state is located.

text:
# Political history of Finland

This article deals with the political history of Finland from prehistoric times, through the Swedish rule (c.1200-1808), to the Russian rule (Grand Duchy of Finland, 1809-1917) and the time of independent Finland (1917-). In this context, Finland broadly refers to the geographical area in which the current Finnish state is located.

## Swedish rule

In 1362, Finland was granted the right to send a representative to the Swedish royal election. Under the 1634 Swedish-Finnish form of government and the first parliamentary order, Finland's four estates, the nobility, the clergy, the bourgeoisie and the peasants, sent their representatives to the Riksdag in Stockholm.

## Autonomy in the Russian Empire (1809–1917)

After the weakening of the Swedish Empire, it was no longer in a position to maintain its conquests of the Baltic Sea environment and had to cede the eastern parts to Russia as a result of wars. First, the so-called Old Finland, and with the Finnish War, the rest of Finland, which became a fully autonomous Grand Duchy to the Russian Empire in 1809. Finland had the status of a Grand Duchy from 1809 to 1917.

### Critical changes

A significant change compared to the Swedish era was that Finland began to build its own central government. In 1809, the Finnish Senate was established to deal with Finland's internal affairs. It was to prepare and implement matters within the emperor's discretion, and in practice acted as a government. Under the Senate, a central government was formed, which in time developed into the state administration of independent Finland. The Secretary of State of Finland served in Saint Petersburg to present Finnish affairs to the Emperor. The establishment of these new administrative bodies was of great importance, and through them Finland was able to improve its own conditions when the taxes collected could be used directly for Finland's benefit. In 1812, the Russian Emperor Alexander I moved the capital of the Grand Duchy from Turku to Helsinki. In the same year, the so-called Old Finland, i.e. the area of Finland that Sweden lost to Russia in the 18th century, was restored to Finland. Vyborg, the most important city in Old Finland, grew into a major port and industrial city during the 19th century. In many ways, however, life continued unchanged from Swedish times.

Despite the development of the administration and the economy, the transition to Russian rule was not entirely favorable for Finland. For example, Finland was left out of the political development that began in Sweden towards a constitutional monarchy, party politics and, ultimately, democracy. The Diet did not begin to convene in Finland until the 1860s. Finland was also overshadowed by the strong development of freedom of expression in Sweden in the 19th century, the development of a free press, the strengthening of the rights and freedoms of individuals and the formation of civil society. The Russian Empire represented the opposites of the liberal ideals of the era to conservatism, monotony, and arbitrariness. The Finnish central government also adopted the methods of the Russian bureaucracy fluently and generally did not take a very positive view of the reforms.

### Political struggles during autonomy

During the Russian rule, political activism gradually grew demanding more autonomy and eventually independence for Finland. However, several generations of struggle were needed before the Finnish nationalist movement realized its objectives. One form of activism was the underscoring of Finnish language, also at the expense of the primacy of Swedish language that was still widely spoken and the official language of the country. Numerous members of the Swedish-speaking community entered the campaign, adopting Finnish as their language and exchanging their Swedish family names for Finnish ones. Finnish journals were founded, and Finnish became an official language in 1863. By the end of the century, there was a slight majority of Finnish-speaking students at the University of Helsinki, and Finnish-speakers made up sizable portions of the professions.

Finland's first political parties grew out of the language struggle. Those advocating full rights for Finnish-speakers formed the so-called Fennoman group that by the 1890s had split into the Old Finns and the Young Finns, the former mainly concerned with the language question, the latter urging the introduction of political liberalism. The Swedish-speaking community formed a short-lived Liberal Party. As the century drew to a close and the Fennoman movement had achieved its principal goals, economic issues and relations with the tsarist empire came to dominate politics.

Over time Finland's modernizing economy encouraged the formation of social groups with specific, and sometimes opposing, interests. In addition to the Finnish movement's Old and Young Finns, other political organizations came into being. Because the existing political groups did not adequately represent labor's interests, a workers' party was formed at the end of the century. In 1903 it became the Finnish Social Democratic Party (Suomen Sosialidemokraattinen Puolue or SDP). At the same time labor was organizing itself, the farmers began a cooperative movement; in 1907 they formed the Agrarian Party (Maalaisliitto). The Swedish People's Party (Svenska Folkpartiet or SFP), also dating from this period, was formed to serve the entire Swedish-speaking population.

The Grand Duchy's relationship with St. Petersburg began to deteriorate in the 1890s. The nervousness of tsarist officials about Finnish loyalty in wartime prompted measures to bind Finland more closely to the empire. The campaign of "Russification" ended only with Finland's independence in 1917. In retrospect, the campaign can be seen as a failure, but for several decades it caused much turmoil within Finland, reaching its most extreme point with the assassination of the governor general in 1904. The first Russian revolution, that of 1905, allowed Finns to discard their antiquated Diet and to replace it with a unicameral legislature, the Eduskunta, elected through universal suffrage. Finland became the first European nation in which women had the franchise. The first national election, that of 1907, yielded Europe's largest social democratic parliamentary faction. In a single step, Finland went from being one of Europe's most politically backward countries to being one of its most advanced. Nonetheless, frequent dissolutions at the hands of the tsar permitted the Eduskunta to achieve little before independence.

### Right to vote and the first parliamentary elections

In 1906, universal and equal suffrage was enacted in Finland for both women and men. Women were the first in the world to exercise their right to vote in the 1907 parliamentary elections. At that time, excluded from the right to vote were however, for example, persons receiving assistance for the disabled. Under the current constitution, the right to vote is universal and equal for everyone over the age of 18.

The first parliamentary elections were held on 15–16 March 1907. Until then, Finland lagged behind other European countries in terms of democracy, but now women were the first in Europe to receive both the right to vote and to stand for election, and the 19 women MPs elected to the new parliament were the world's first female MPs. At the end of the Diet, there were about 126,000 eligible voters in Finland, but in the first parliamentary elections there were 1,272,873, i.e. the parliamentary reform increased the electorate tenfold. Modern party institutions were also born in Finland with the right to vote in 1906.

### Decreased autonomy

The reforms in Russia after the revolution of 1905 put an end to Finland's autonomy. With these reforms, Russia got a cabinet headed by the Prime Minister, through which all matters concerning Finland that went to the emperor passed through. Thus, it can be said that Finland's autonomy ended or was at most limited to those things that did not require the approval of the emperor and thus the Russian government.

Finland's autonomy experienced a new upswing after the February Revolution and the subsequent March manifesto, when part of the February Manifesto (1899), and the 1910 law on national legislation were repealed. However, in Finland there was a dispute over the supreme power, and in Russia the position of the provisional government was at least questionable.

## The time of independence (1917–present)

The Finnish Senate issued a declaration of independence on December 6, 1917, after Russia's second revolution in October 1917. The Council of People's Commissars of Soviet Russia, chaired by Lenin, recognized Finland's independence on December 31, 1917, and soon after that many other states followed. On January 28, 1918, a civil war broke out that ended in the victory of German-backed Whites against Bolsheviks-backed Reds. In the same year, the volunteers made some armed expeditions into Soviet Russia, including Karelia, and also Estonia. Peace with Soviet Russia was established in Tartu on November 14, 1920. During World War II, Finland fought against the Soviet Union in the Winter War of 1939–1940 and in the Continuation War of 1941–1944. After the ceasefire on September 4, 1944, the weapons had to be turned at the request of the Soviet Union against Germany in the Lapland War of 1944–1945.

### Independence, civil war and the inter-war period

The second Russian revolution allowed Finland to break away from the Russian empire, and independence was declared on 6 December 1917. Within weeks, domestic political differences led to a Finnish Civil War that lasted until May 1918, when right-wing forces, with some German assistance, were able to claim victory. As a consequence, Finland began its existence as an independent state with a considerable segment of its people estranged from the holders of power, a circumstance that caused much strife in Finnish politics.

After right-wing dreams of a monarchy based on the coronation of a German prince as the king of Finland came crumbling down with the German defeat in the World War, a republic was formed. In mid-1919, Finns agreed on a new Constitution, one that constructed a modern parliamentary system of government from existing political institutions and traditions. The 200-seat unicameral parliament, the Eduskunta, was retained. A cabinet, the Council of State, was fashioned from the Senate of the tsarist period. A powerful presidency, derived, in part at least, from the office of governor general, was created and provided with a mixture of powers and duties that, in other countries, might be shared by such figures as king, president, and prime minister. Also included in the new governmental system was an independent judiciary. The powers of the three branches of government were controlled through an overlapping of powers, rather than a strict separation of powers.

Finland faced numerous political and economic difficulties in the interwar years, but it surmounted them better than many other European countries. Despite the instability of many short-lived governments, the political system held together during the first decades of independence. While other countries succumbed to right-wing forces, Finland had only a brush with fascism. Communist organizations were banned, and their representatives in the Eduskunta arrested, but the SDP was able to recover from wounds sustained during the Civil War and was returned to power. In 1937 the party formed the first of the so-called Red-Earth coalitions with the Agrarian League, the most common party combination of the next fifty years, one that brought together the parties representing the two largest social groups. The language problem was largely resolved by provisions in the Constitution that protected the rights of the Swedish-speaking minority.

### World War II and the Cold War period

Finland's official foreign policy of neutrality in the interwar period could not offset the strategic importance of the country's territory to Nazi Germany and to the Soviet Union. The latter was convinced that it had a defensive need to ensure that Finland would not be used as an avenue for attack on its northwestern areas, especially on Leningrad. Moreover, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had agreed in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact to divide the countries of Eastern Europe between themselves. Accordingly, the Soviet Union launched an attack of Finland in November 1939. A valiant Finnish defense slowed the invaders, but in March 1940 the Winter War ended when Finland agreed to cede to the Soviets about 10 percent of Finnish territory and to permit a Soviet military base on Finnish soil. In June 1941 Finland joined Germany as cobelligerent in its attack on the Soviet Union. In what Finns call the Continuation War, Finland confined its military actions to areas near its prewar borders. In the fall of 1944, Finland made a separate peace with the Soviet Union, one that was conditional on its ceding territory, granting basing rights, agreeing to onerous reparation payments, and expelling German forces from its territory. Nevertheless, Finland succeeded in being one of only two belligerents in Europe that stayed never occupied, independent and with its democracy intact throughout the war, the other being the United Kingdom.

By the early 1950s, the patterns of postwar Finnish politics were established. No one group was dominant, but the Agrarian League held the presidency under Urho Kekkonen for a quarter century. Kekkonen first became president in 1956, and secured a place for the conservative Agrarian League as almost a permanent governing party until the late 1980s. In 1966 it changed its name to the Center Party (Keskustapuolue or Keskusta) in an attempt to appeal to a broader segment of the electorate, but it still was not successful in penetrating southern coastal Finland. Meanwhile, the Social Democratic Party historically the largest party, still remained strong but it was often riven by dissension. In addition, it had to share the leftist vote with the Communist Party of Finland (*Suomen Kommunistinen Puolue* or SKP). As a consequence, right-wing parties never had to face a united left. In the 1980s, the communists had severe problems adjusting to new social conditions, and they split into several warring groups. As a result, their movement had a marginal position in Finnish politics. The SFP, a moderate centrist party with liberal and conservative wings, had a slightly declining number of seats in the parliament Eduskunta, but its position in the middle of the political spectrum often made it indispensable for coalition governments. The National Coalition Party (Kansallinen Kokoomuspuolue or Kokoomus), rigidly conservative in the interwar period, gradually became more moderate and grew stronger, surpassing the Center Party in the number of parliamentary seats in 1979. Excluded from a role in government for decades, possibly because it had been more right-wing earlier, the Kokoomus participated in the government formed after the national elections of 1987, supplying the prime minister, Harri Holkeri. The Liberal Party of the postwar period was never strong, and it had a negligible role by the 1980s and eventually was dissolved.

A number of smaller parties, protest parties, and parties representing quite distinct groups filled out the list of about a dozen organizations that regularly vied for public office. Pensioners and activist Christians each had their own party, and environmentalists won several seats in the 1983 and the 1987 national elections — a movement which later grew to the modern Green Party during the 1990s. The most active of the protest parties was the Finnish Rural Party (Suomen Maaseudun Puolue or SMP), which managed to take votes from both the Center Party and leftist parties. It scored its first big successes in the 1970 national elections. Since then its electoral results have varied considerably. By the late 1980s, it seemed a spent force, but arose again as a populist right-wing party after changing its name to Perussuomalaiset or True Finns.

After the 1966 national elections President Kekkonen succeeded in forming a popular front coalition government that contained communists, socialists, and members of the Center Party. Although this government lasted only two years and was succeeded for another decade by short-lived coalition and caretaker civil service governments, it was the beginning of what Finns call the politics of consensus. By the 1980s, consensus politics had become so dominant that some observers claimed that Finnish politics, long so bitter and contentious, had become the most boring in Western Europe. Although the larger parties differed on specific issues, and personal rivalries could be poisonous, there was broad agreement about domestic and foreign policy. The cabinet put in place after the 1983 elections, consisting mainly of social democrats and members of the Center Party, completed its whole term of office, the first government to do so in the postwar period. This ushered in an era of relatively long lasting governments where leadership changes took place mainly through regular elections.

A foundation of the politics of consensus was the success of the system of broad incomes agreements that has characterized Finland's employee-employer relations in recent decades. The first of these, the Liinamaa Agreement, dated from 1968. By the 1980s, the process was so regular as to seem institutionalized. With about 80 percent of the work force as members, unions negotiated incomes agreements with employers' organizations. The government often helped in the talks and subsequently proposed legislation embodying social welfare measures or financial measures that underpinned the agreements. The process was successful at increasing labor peace in a country that had been racked by strikes for the first decades after World War II. Although there were complaints that the agreements bypassed political channels or excluded minority opinion, the obvious prosperity they had helped bring about made the incomes policy system and the politics of consensus highly popular.

### Integration to the West

In 1982, Mauno Koivisto, the successor of long-term president Urho Kekkonen, was elected president, promising to reduce the powers of the president and increase those of the prime minister.

The convergence of Finland and the European Community began in the autumn of 1989 with the decision to join the European Economic Area (EEA) in 1994.

Following a positive vote in Parliament, Finland's application for EC membership was submitted on 18 March 1992, and membership negotiations began on 1 February 1993 at the same time as with Sweden and Austria.

Finland joined the European Union in 1995. In 2002, the euro replaced the markka as Finland's official currency.

In 2000, Finland's first female president, Tarja Halonen, took office. The former President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2008. President Sauli Niinistö held office since 2012 until 2024.

After almost 30 years of close partnership with NATO, Finland joined the Alliance on 4 April 2023. Finland's partnership with NATO was historically based on its policy of military non-alignment, which changed following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. On 1 March 2024, Alexander Stubb, a staunch supporter of NATO, was sworn in as Finland’s new president.

## Bibliography

* Jussila, Osmo & Hentilä, Seppo & Nevakivi, Jukka (2009). *Suomen poliittinen historia 1809–2009*. Helsinki: WSOY Oppimateriaalit.`{{cite book}}`: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* Kuisma, Markku (2009). *Suomen poliittinen taloushistoria 1000–2000*. Helsinki: Siltala.
* Pernaa, Ville & Niemi, Mari K. (toim.) (2005). *Suomalaisen yhteiskunnan poliittinen historia*. Helsinki: Edita.`{{cite book}}`: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* Visuri, Pekka (2006). *Suomi kylmässä sodassa*. Helsingissä: Otava.


abstract: The political history of the region on the Deccan Plateau in west-central peninsular India that was later divided into Mysore state and Coorg province saw many changes after the fall of the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire in 1565. The rise of Sultan Haidar Ali in 1761 introduced a new period. At the height of the Vijayanagara Empire, the Mysore and Coorg region was ruled by diverse chieftains, or rajas. Each raja had the right to govern a small region, but also an obligation to supply soldiers and annual tribute for the empire's needs. After the empire's fall and the subsequent eastward move of the diminished ruling family, many chieftains tried to loosen their imperial bonds and expand their realms. Sensing opportunity amidst the new uncertainty, various powers from the north invaded the region. Among these were the Sultanate of Bijapur to the northwest, the Sultanate of Golconda to the northeast, the newly-formed Maratha empire farther northwest, and the major contemporary empire of India, the Mughal, which bounded all on the north. For much of the 17th century the tussles between the little kings and the big powers, and amongst the little kings, culminated in shifting sovereignties, loyalties, and borders. By the turn of the 18th century, the political landscape had become better defined: the northwestern hills were being ruled by the Nayaka rulers of Ikkeri, the southwestern—in the Western Ghats—by the Rajas of Coorg, the southern plains by the Wodeyar rulers of Mysore, all of which were Hindu dynasties; and the eastern and northeastern regions by the Muslim Nawabs of Arcot and Sira. Of these, Ikkeri and Coorg were independent, Mysore, although much-expanded, was formally a Mughal dependency, and Arcot and Sira, Mughal subahs. Mysore's expansions had been based on unstable alliances. When the alliances began to unravel, as they did during the next half-century, decay set in, presided over by politically and militarily inept kings. The Mughal governor, Nawab of Arcot, in a display of the still remaining reach of a declining Mughal empire, raided the Mysore capital, Seringapatam, to collect unpaid taxes. The Raja of Coorg began a war of attrition over territory in Mysore's western bordering regions. The Maratha empire invaded and exacted concessions of land. In the chaotic last decade of this period, a little-known Muslim cavalryman, Haidar Ali, seized power in Mysore. Under him, and in the decades following, Mysore was to expand again. It was to match all of southern India in size, and to pose the last serious threat to the new rising power on the subcontinent, the English East India Company. A common feature of all large regimes in the region during the period 1565–1760 is increased military fiscalism. This mode of creating income for the state consisted of extraction of tribute payments from local chiefs under threat of military action. It differed both from the more segmentary modes of preceding regimes and the more absolutist modes of succeeding ones—the latter achieved through direct tax collection from citizens. Another common feature of these regimes is the fragmentary historiography devoted to them, making broad generalizations difficult.

text:
# Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760)

The political history of the region on the Deccan Plateau in west-central peninsular India (Map 1) that was later divided into Mysore state and Coorg province saw many changes after the fall of the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire in 1565. The rise of Sultan Haidar Ali in 1761 introduced a new period.

At the height of the Vijayanagara Empire, the Mysore and Coorg region was ruled by diverse chieftains, or rajas ("little kings"). Each raja had the right to govern a small region, but also an obligation to supply soldiers and annual tribute for the empire's needs. After the empire's fall and the subsequent eastward move of the diminished ruling family, many chieftains tried to loosen their imperial bonds and expand their realms. Sensing opportunity amidst the new uncertainty, various powers from the north invaded the region. Among these were the Sultanate of Bijapur to the northwest, the Sultanate of Golconda to the northeast, the newly-formed Maratha empire farther northwest, and the major contemporary empire of India, the Mughal, which bounded all on the north. For much of the 17th century the tussles between the little kings and the big powers, and amongst the little kings, culminated in shifting sovereignties, loyalties, and borders. By the turn of the 18th century, the political landscape had become better defined: the northwestern hills were being ruled by the Nayaka rulers of Ikkeri, the southwestern—in the Western Ghats—by the Rajas of Coorg, the southern plains by the Wodeyar rulers of Mysore, all of which were Hindu dynasties; and the eastern and northeastern regions by the Muslim Nawabs of Arcot and Sira. Of these, Ikkeri and Coorg were independent, Mysore, although much-expanded, was formally a Mughal dependency, and Arcot and Sira, Mughal *subahs* (or provinces).

Mysore's expansions had been based on unstable alliances. When the alliances began to unravel, as they did during the next half-century, decay set in, presided over by politically and militarily inept kings. The Mughal governor, Nawab of Arcot, in a display of the still remaining reach of a declining Mughal empire, raided the Mysore capital, Seringapatam, to collect unpaid taxes. The Raja of Coorg began a war of attrition over territory in Mysore's western bordering regions. The Maratha empire invaded and exacted concessions of land. In the chaotic last decade of this period, a little-known Muslim cavalryman, Haidar Ali, seized power in Mysore. Under him, and in the decades following, Mysore was to expand again. It was to match all of southern India in size, and to pose the last serious threat to the new rising power on the subcontinent, the English East India Company.

A common feature of all large regimes in the region during the period 1565–1760 is increased military fiscalism. This mode of creating income for the state consisted of extraction of tribute payments from local chiefs under threat of military action. It differed both from the more segmentary modes of preceding regimes and the more absolutist modes of succeeding ones—the latter achieved through direct tax collection from citizens. Another common feature of these regimes is the fragmentary historiography devoted to them, making broad generalizations difficult.

## Poligars of Vijayanagara, 1565–1635

On 23 January 1565 the last Hindu empire in South India, the Vijayanagara Empire, was defeated by the combined forces of the Muslim states of Bijapur, Golconda, and Ahmadnagar in the Battle of Talikota. The battle was fought on the *doab* (interfluve, or tongue of land) between the Kistna river and its major left bank tributary, the Bhima, 100 miles (160 km) to the north of the imperial capital, Vijayanagara (Map 2). The invaders from the north later destroyed the capital, and the ruler's family escaped to Penukonda, 125 miles (201 km) to the southeast, where they established their new capital. Later, they moved another 175 miles (282 km) east-southeast to Chandragiri, not far from the coast, and survived there until 1635, their dwindling empire concentrating its resources on its eastern Tamil and Telugu speaking realms. According to historian Sanjay Subrahmanyam: " ... in the ten years following 1565, the imperial centre of Vijayanagara effectively ceased to be a power as far as the western reaches of the peninsula were concerned, leaving a vacuum that was eventually filled by Ikkeri and Mysore."

In the heyday of their rule, the kings of Vijayanagara had granted tracts of land in their realm to vassal chiefs on the stipulation of an annual tribute and of military service during times of war. The chiefs in the richer, more distant, southern provinces were not controlled easily, and only a fraction of the tribute was collected from them. Overseen by a viceroy—titled *Sri Ranga Raya* and based in the island town of Seringapatam on the river Kaveri, 200 miles (320 km) south of the capital, the southern chiefs bore various titles. These included the *Nayaka*, assumed by the chiefs of Keladi in the northwestern hills, Basavapatna, and Chitaldroog in the north, Belur in the west, and Hegalvadi in the centre; the title *Gowda*, assumed by the chiefs of Ballapur and Yelahanka in the centre, and Sugatur in the east; and *Wodeyar*, assumed by the rulers of Mysore in the south. (Map 2.)

The southern chiefs (sometimes called *rajas*, or "little kings") resisted on moral and political grounds as well. According to historian Burton Stein:

> 'Little kings', or *rajas*, never attained the legal independence of an aristocracy from both monarchs and the local people whom they ruled. The sovereign claims of would-be centralizing, South Indian rulers and the resources demanded in the name of that sovereignty diminished the resources which local chieftains used as a kind of royal largess; thus centralizing demands were opposed on moral as well as on political grounds by even quite modest chiefs.

These chiefs came to be called *poligars*, a British corruption of "Palaiyakkarar," Tamil: holder of "palaiya" or "baronial estate;" Kannada: *palagararu*.

In 1577, more than a decade after the Battle of Talikota, Bijapur forces attacked again and overwhelmed all opposition along the western coast. They easily took Adoni, a former Vijayanagara stronghold, and subsequently attempted to take Penukonda, the new Vijayanagara capital. (Map 3).) They were, however, repulsed by an army led by the Vijayanagara ruler's father-in-law, Jagadeva Raya, who had travelled north for the engagement from his base in Baramahal. For his services, his territories within the crumbling empire were expanded out to the Western Ghats, the mountain range running along the southwestern coast of India; a new capital was established in Channapatna (Map 6.)

Soon the Wodeyars of Mysore (present-day Mysore district) began to more openly disregard the Vijayanagara monarch, annexing small states in their vicinity. (Map 3) The chiefs of Ummattur attempted to do the same despite punitive raids by the Vijayanagara armies. Eventually, as a compromise, the son of an Ummattur chief was appointed the viceroy at Seringapatam. In 1644, Mysore Wodeyars unseated the powerful Changalvas of Piriyapatna, becoming the dominant presence in the southern regions. (Map 6.) By this time the Vijayanagara empire was on its last legs.

## Bijapur, Marathas, Mughals, 1636–1687

In 1636, nearly 60 years after their defeat at Penukonda, the Sultans of Bijapur regrouped and invaded the kingdoms to their south. They did so with the blessing of the Mughal empire of northern India whose tributary states they had newly become. They had the help also of a chieftain of the Maratha uplands of western India, Shahaji Bhonsle, who was on the lookout for rewards of *jagir* land in the conquered territories the taxes on which he could collect as an annuity.

In the western-central poligar regions, the Nayakas of Keladi were easily defeated, but were able to buy back their lands from their Bijapur invaders. (Map 4.) Eastward, the Bijapur-Shahji forces took the gold-rich Kolar district in 1639, and Bangalore—a city founded a century earlier by Kempe Gowda I. Advancing down the Eastern Ghats, the mountains rising behind the coastal plains of southeastern India, they captured the historic towns of Vellore and Gingee. Returning north through the east-central *maidan* plain (average elevation 600 m (2,000 ft)), they gained possession of the towns of Ballapur, Sira, and the hill fortress of Chitaldroog. (See Map 4.)

A new province, *Caranatic-Bijapur-Balaghat*, incorporating Kolar, Hoskote, Bangalore, and Sira, and situated above (or westwards of) the Eastern Ghats range, was added to the Sultanate of Bijapur and granted to Shahji as a *jagir*. The possessions *below* the Ghats, such as Gingee and Vellore became part of another province, *Carnatic-Bijapur-Payanghat*, and Shahji was appointed its first governor.

When Shahji died in 1664, his son Venkoji from his second wife, who had become the ruler of Tanjore much farther down the peninsula, inherited these territories. This did not sit well with Shahji's eldest son, from his first wife, Shivaji Bhonsle—a chieftain back in the Maratha uplands—who swiftly led an expedition southwards to claim his share. His quick victories resulted in a partition, whereby both the *Carnatic-Bijapur* provinces became his jagirs, and Tanjore was retained by Venkoji. (See Map 4.)

The successes of Bijapur and Shivaji were being watched with some alarm by their suzrain, the Mughals. Emperor Aurengzeb, who had usurped the Mughal throne in 1659, soon set himself upon destroying the remaining Deccan sultanates. In 1686, the Mughals took Bijapur and, the following year, Golconda, capturing the latter's diamond mines. Before long, fast-moving Mughal armies were bearing down on all the former Vijayanagara lands. Bangalore, quickly taken by the Mughals from the Marathas, was sold to the Wodeyar of Mysore for 300,000 rupees. In 1687, a new Mughal province (or *suba*), *Province of Sira*, was created with capital at Sira city. Qasim Khan was appointed the first Mughal *Faujdar Diwan* (literally, "military governor").

## *Wodeyars* of Mysore, 1610–1760

Although their own histories date the origins of the Wodeyars of Mysore (also "Odeyar", "Udaiyar", "Wodiyar", "Wadiyar", or "Wadiar", and, literally, "chief") to 1399, records of them go back no earlier than the early 16th century. These *poligars* are first mentioned in a Kannada language literary work from the early 16th century. A petty chieftain, Chamaraja (now Chamaraja III), who ruled from 1513 to 1553 over a few villages not far from the Kaveri river, is said to have constructed a small fort and named it, *Mahisuranagara* ("Buffalo Town"), from which Mysore gets its name. (Map 5.) The Wodeyar clan issued its first inscription during the chieftaincy of Timmaraja (now Timmaraja II) who ruled from 1553 to 1572. Towards the end of his rule, he is recorded to have owned 33 villages and fielded an army of 300 men.

By the time of the short-lived incumbency of Timmaraja II's son, Chama Raja IV—who, well into his 60s, ruled from 1572 to 1576—the Vijayanagara Empire had been dealt its fatal blow. Before long, Chama Raja IV withheld payment of the annual tribute to the empire's viceroy at Seringapatam. The viceroy responded by attempting to arrest Chamaraja IV, failing, and letting the taxes remain unpaid. An outright military challenge to the empire would have to await the incumbency of Raja I, Chama Raja IV's eldest son, who became the *Wodeyar* in 1578. Raja I captured Seringapatam and, in a matter of days, moved his capital there on 8 February 1610. (Map 5.) During his rule, according to Burton Stein, his "chiefdom expanded into a major principality".

In 1638, the reins of power fell into the hands of the 23-year-old Kanthirava Narasaraja I, who had been adopted a few months earlier by the widow of Raja I. Kanthirava was the first *wodeyar* of Mysore to create the symbols of royalty such as a royal mint, and coins named *Kanthiraya* (corrupted to "Canteroy") after himself. These remained a part of Mysore's "current national money" well into the 18th century.

Catholic missionaries, who had arrived in the coastal areas of southern India—the southwestern Malabar coast, the western Kanara coast, and the southeastern Coromandel coast (also "Carnatic")—early in the 16th century, were not active in land-locked Mysore until halfway through the 17th. (Map 5). The Mysore mission was established in Seringapatam in 1649 by Leonardo Cinnami, an Italian Jesuit from Goa. Expelled a few years later from Mysore on account of opposition in Kanthirava's court, Cinnami returned, toward the end of Kanthirava's rule, to establish missions in half a dozen locations. During his second stay Cinnami obtained permission to convert Kanthirava's subjects to Christianity. He was successful mostly in the regions which were to become a part of the Madras Presidency of British India. According to (Subrahmanyam 1989), "Of a reported 1700 converts in the Mysore mission in the mid-1660s, a mere quarter were *Kannadigas* (Kannada language speakers), the rest being Tamil speakers from the western districts of modern-day Tamil Nadu, ..."

After an unremarkable period of rule by short-lived incumbents, Kanthirava's 27-year-old great nephew, Chikka Devaraja, became the new *wodeyar* in 1672. During his rule, centralized military power increased to an unprecedented degree for the region. (Map 5 and Map 7.) Although he introduced various mandatory taxes on peasant-owned land, Chikka Devaraja exempted his soldiers' land from these payments. The apprehended inequity of this action, the unusually high taxes, and the intrusive nature of his regime, created widespread protests which had the support of the wandering Jangama ascetics in the monasteries of the Lingayats, a monotheistic religious order that emphasizes a personal relationship with the Hindu god Shiva. According to D. R. Nagaraja a slogan of the protests was:

> Basavanna the Bull tills the forest land; Devendra gives the rains;
> Why should we, the ones who grow crops through hard labour, pay taxes to the king?

The king used the stratagem of inviting over 400 monks to a grand feast at the famous Shaiva centre of *Nanjanagudu*. Upon its conclusion, he presented them with gifts and directed them to exit one at a time through a narrow lane where they were strangled by royal wrestlers who had been awaiting them.

Around 1687 Chikka Devaraja purchased the city of Bangalore for Rs. 300,000 from Qasim Khan, the new Mughal governor of the Province of Sira. Continual strife with the Marathas led to an alliance with the Mughal emperor Aurengzeb (reigned 1658–1707), who elaborately praised the Mysore king for the pursuit of their mutual enemy. Lands below the Eastern Ghats around Baramahal and Salem, less the objects of Mughal interest, were annexed to Mysore, as were those below the Baba Budan mountains on the western edge of the Deccan Plateau. When the Raja died on 16 November 1704, his dominions extended from Midagesi in the north to Palni Hills and Anaimalai in the south, and from Coorg in the west to Dharmapuri district in the east. (Map 5 and Map 7.)

According to Sanjay Subrahmanyam, the polity that Chikka Devaraja left for his son was "at one and the same time a strong and a weak" one. Although it had uniformly expanded in size from the mid-17th century to the early 18th century, it had done so as a result of alliances that tended to hinder the very stability of the expansions. Some of the southeastern conquests (such as that of Salem), although involving regions that were not of direct interest to the Mughals, were the result of alliances with the Mughal governor of Sira and with Venkoji, the Maratha ruler of Tanjore. The siege of Tiruchirapalli had to be abandoned because the alliance had begun to rupture. (Map 7.) Similarly, in addition to allegedly receiving a signet ring and a Royal State Sword or Sword of State from Aurangzeb in 1700, Chikka Devaraja accepted an unspoken subordination to Mughal authority and a requirement to pay annual taxes. There is evidence also that the administrative reforms Chikka Devaraja had instituted might have been a direct result of Mughal influence.

The early 18th century ushered in the rule of Kanthirava Narasaraja II, who being both hearing- and speech-impaired ruled under the regency of a series of army chiefs (*Delavoys*), all hailing from a single family from the village of Kalale in the Nanjangud taluk (or sub-district) of Mysore. Upon the ruler's death in 1714 at the age of 41, his son, Dodda Krishnaraja I, still two weeks shy of his 12th birthday, succeeded him. According to E. J. Rice, the ruler's lack of interest in the affairs of state, led two ministers, Devaraja, the army chief (or *delavayi*), and his cousin, Nanjaraja, who was both the revenue minister (the *sarvadhikari*) and the privy councilor (*pradhana*), to wield all authority in the kingdom. After Dodda Krishnaraja's death in 1736, the ministers appointed "pageant rajas", and effectively ruled Mysore until the rise of Haidar Ali in 1760.

## *Nayakas* of Ikkeri and Kanara trade, 1565–1763

In the northwestern regions, according to Stein,

> an even more impressive chiefly house arose in Vijayanagara times and came to enjoy an extensive sovereignty. These were the Keladi chiefs who later founded the *Nayaka* kingdom of Ikkeri. At its greatest, the Ikkeri *rajas* controlled a territory nearly as large as the Vijayanagara heartland, some 20,000 square miles, extending about 180 miles south from Goa along the trade-rich Kanara coast.

When Vasco da Gama landed in Calicut on the southwestern Malabar coast of India in 1498, the Vijayanagara empire was about to reach its apex. The Portuguese pursued their pepper trade farther south on the Malabar coast. In the decade after the fall of the empire, they decided as a commercial strategy to hedge their bets and to commence purchasing pepper from the Kanara region. During 1568–1569, they took possession of the coastal towns of Onor (now Honavar), Barcelor (now Basrur), and Mangalore and constructed fortresses and factories at each location. (Map 1 and Map 8.)

Onor (Modern Honnavar) was located on the banks of the Sharavathi River, where the river widened into a lake, two miles (3 km) upstream from its mouth. Built strategically on a cliff, the Portuguese fort contained homes for thirty *casados* (married settlers). A natural sandbank kept out the large ocean-going ships, leaving the harbour accessible only to small craft. Approximately, 35 miles (56 km) farther upstream, the Portuguese maintained a weighing station at Gersoppa, where they purchased the pepper. During the latter part of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th, Onor not only became the principal port for the export of Kanara pepper, but also the most important Portuguese supply point for pepper in all of Asia.

Located some 50 miles (80 km) south of Onor, and a few miles up the Coondapoor estuary (now Varahi), was the town of Barcelore (now Basrur). Building their fortress downstream of the existing Hindu town in order to control any approaches from the sea, the Portuguese provided accommodation for 30 *casados* within its walls; another 35 casados and their families lived in a walled compound at a stone's throw. Barcelore became a busy trading centre which exported rice, local textiles, saltpetre, and iron from the interior regions and imported corals, exotic yard goods and horses.(Map 1 and Map 8.)

Fifty miles south of Barcelore was Mangalore, the last of the Portuguese strongholds in Kanara; it was situated on the mouth of the Netravati River. There too the Portuguese built a fortress and alongside it a walled town with accommodation for 35 *casados* families. Both Barcelore and Mangalore became principal ports for the export of rice, and during the first half of the 17th century supplied the other strategic *fortalezas* of significance to the *Estado da India*, the Portuguese Asian empire. These included, Goa, Malacca, Muscat, Mozambique and Mombasa. (Map 1.)

As a ready source of rice, pepper, and teak, the Kanara coast was important to the *Estado*. For much of the 16th century, Portuguese had been able to negotiate favourable terms of trade with the weak principalities that constituted the Kanara coast. Towards the end of the century, the *Nayaka* ruler of Keladi (and Ikkeri), Venkatappa Nayaka (r. 1592–1629), and his successors, Virabhadra Nayaka (r. 1629–1645) and Shivappa Nayaka (r. 1645–1660) forced a revision of the previous trade treaties. By the 1630s, the Portuguese had agreed to buy pepper at market rates and the rulers of Ikkeri had been permitted two voyages per year without the purchase of a *cartaz* (a pass for Portuguese protection) as well as annual importation of twelve duty-free horses. When the last king of Vijayanagara sought refuge in his realms, Shivappa Nayaka set him up at Belur and Sakkarepatna, and later mounted an unsuccessful siege of Seringapatam on the latter's behalf. By the 1650s, he had driven the Portuguese out of the three *fortalezas* at Onor, Barcelore, and Mangalore. After his death in 1660, his successor Somashker Nayaka, however, sent an embassy to Goa for reestablishing the Portuguese trading posts in Kanara. By 1671, a treaty had been agreed to which was very favorable once again to the Portuguese. (Map 8 and Map 9.)

Before the treaty could be implemented, though, Somashkar Nayaka died and was succeeded by an infant grandson Basava Nayaka, his succession disputed by the Queen Mother, who favoured another claimant, Timmaya Nayaka. The 1671 treaty languished amidst the succession struggle until 1678, when yet another treaty was negotiated with Basava Nayaka who had emerged as the victor. As both parties in the succession struggle had been interested in purchasing European artillery from the Portuguese, the eventual treaty of 1678 was even more favourable to the latter. Under it, Basava agreed to pay 30,000 xerafins in Portuguese war-charges for the decade-long conflict with the Dutch (whom the Nayakas of Ikkeri had supported), to provide construction material for the factory at Mangalore, to provide 1,500 sacks of clean rice annually, to pay a yearly tribute for Mangalore and Barcelore, to destroy the factories of the Omani Arabs on the Kanara coast, and to allow Catholic churches to be built at a number of locations in Kanara. With the treaty in place, Portuguese power returned to Kanara after an interregnum of almost half a century.

## *Subahdars* of Sira, 1689–1760

A Mughal province which comprised the Carnatic region south of the Tungabhadra river, and which was to exist for seventy years, was established in 1687 with its capital at Sira (in Tumkur District). ( Map 10.) The *Province of Sira* (also *Carnatic-Balaghat*) was composed of seven parganas (districts): Basavapatna, Budihal, Sira, Penukonda, Dod-Ballapur, Hoskote, and Kolar; in addition, Harpanahalli, Kondarpi, Anegundi, Bednur, Chitaldroog, and Mysore were considered by the Mughals to be tributary states of the province. Qasim Khan (also, Khasim Khan or Kasim Khan) was appointed the first *Subahdar* (governor) and *Faujdar* (military governor) of the province in 1689. Having displayed "energy and success" both in controlling the province and in developing it, he died in 1694, killed either by Maratha raiders from the northwest, or killing himself in disgrace after these raiders seized a treasure under his care. Most *Subhahdars* who governed after him were replaced in a year or two by a successor. The instability continued until Dilavar Khan was appointed governor in 1726, his term lasting until 1756. In 1757, Sira was overrun by the Marathas, but was restored to the Mughals in 1759. In 1761 future ruler Haidar Ali, whose father had been the Mughal military governor (or *Faujdar*) of Kolar district in the province, captured Sira, and soon conferred on himself the title of "Nawab of Sira". However, the defection of his brother five years later caused the province to be lost again to the Marathas, who retained it until Haidar's son, Tipu Sultan, recaptured it for his father in 1774.

The capital of the province, Sira town, prospered most under Dilavar Khan and expanded in size to accommodate 50,000 homes. (Map 10.) Palaces and public monuments of Sira became models for other future constructions; both Haidar Ali's palace in Bangalore and Tipu Sultan's in Seringapatam, built during the period 1761–1799 of their rule, were modelled after Dilavar Khan's palace in Sira. Likewise, according to Rice, Bangalore's Lal Bagh as well as Bangalore fort may have been designed after Sira's Khan Bagh gardens and Sira fort. Sira's civil servants, though, could not be as readily reproduced. After Tipu Sultan had succeeded his father as Sultan of Mysore in 1782, he deported 12,000 families, mainly of city officials, from Sira to Shahr Ganjam, a new capital he founded on Seringapatam island.

Earlier, after the Moghul armies had overrun the Mysore table-land in 1689, twelve parganas (or sub-districts) were annexed to the newly formed province (*subah*) of Sira. The other regions were allowed to remain under the *poligars*, who continued to collect taxes from the cultivators, but were now required to pay annual tribute to the provincial government in Sira. In the annexed regions, an elaborate system of officials collected and managed revenue. Most offices had existed under the previous Bijapur Sultanate administration, and consisted of *Deshmūks*, *Deshpāndes*, *Majmūndārs*, and *Kānungoyas*. The *Deshmūks* "settled accounts" with the village headmen (or *patels*); the *Deshpāndes* verified the account-books of the village registrars (or *kārnāms*); the *Kānungoyas* entered the official regulations in the village record-books and also explained decrees and regulations to the village governing officers and residents. Lastly, the *Majmūndārs* prepared the final documents of the "settlement" (*i.e.* the assessment and payment of tax) and promulgated it.

Until the mid-17th century, both village- and district (*taluq*) accounts had been prepared in the language and script of Kannada, the region's traditional language. However, after the Bijapur invasions, Maratha chieftains came to wield authority in the region and brought in various officials who introduced the Marathi language and script into the "public accounts". The new language even found its way into lands ruled by some poligar chiefs. After the province of Sira was created, Persian, the official language of the Moghul empire, came to be used.

## Rajas of Coorg, mid-16th century – 1768

Although, *Rājendranāme*, a "royal" genealogy of the rulers of Coorg written in 1808, makes no mention of the origin of the lineage, its reading by historian Lewis Rice led him to conclude that the princely line was established by a member of the Ikkeri Nayaka family. Having moved south to the town of Haleri in northern Coorg in the disguise of a wandering Jangama monk, he began to attract followers. With their help, or acquiescence, he took possession of the town, and in such manner eventually came to rule the country. (Map 11.) According to the genealogy, the Coorg *rajas* who ruled from the mid-16th century to the mid-18th century were:

| Rulers of Coorg from mid-16th century to mid-18th century  Ruler Period of rule  Vira Raja Not known  Appaji Raja Not known  Mudu Raja 1633–1687  Dodda Virappa 1687–1738  Chikka Virappa 1738–1768 |
| --- |

By the late 17th century, the *raja*s of Coorg had created an "aggressive and independent" state. Muddu Raja, the Coorg ruler from 1633 to 1687, moved his capital to Mercara, fortifying it and building a palace there in 1681. During the rule of his successor, Dodda Virappa (1687–1736), the army of neighbouring Mysore, then being ruled by the *Wodeyar*, Chikka Devaraja, attacked and seized Piriyapatna. This was a territory abutting Coorg being ruled by a kinsman of Dodda Virappa (Map 11). Uplifted by the victory, the Mysore army attacked Coorg. It had advanced but a short distance when, camping overnight on the Palupare plain, it was surprised by a Coorg ambush. In the ensuing massacre, 15,000 Mysore soldiers were killed, the survivors beating a hasty retreat. For the next two decades, the western reaches of Mysore remained vulnerable to attacks by the Coorg army. In the border district of Yelusavira, for example, the Coorg and Mysore forces fought to a stalemate and, in the end, had to work out a tax-sharing arrangement.

In 1724, major hostilities resumed between Coorg and Mysore. Changing his modus operandi of guerrilla skirmishes in the hilly Coorg jungle, Dodda Virappa took to open field warfare against the Mysore army. Catching it off guard, he took in rapid succession six fortresses from Piriyapatna to Arkalgud. The loss of revenue, some 600,000 gold pagodas, was felt in Mysore, and several months later, in August or September 1724, a large army was sent from the Mysore capital Seringapatam to Coorg. At the army's arrival in the western region, the Coorg forces returned to guerrilla warfare, retreating into the woods. Emboldened by the lack of resistance, the Mysore forces attacked the Coorg hills but met no resistance. A few days into their unopposed advance, haunted by the 1690s' ambush, the Mysore forces panicked, retreating during the night. The Coorg army went back to attacking the Mysore outposts. The back-and-forth continued until the Mysore army was recalled to Seringapatam, leaving the region vulnerable to Coorg raids. According to historian Sanjay Subrahmanyam,

> The entire episode yields a rare insight into one aspect of war in the 18th century: the (Coorg) forces, lacking cavalry, with a minimum of firearms, lost every major battle, but won the war by dint of two factors. First, the terrain, and the possibility of retreating periodically into the wooded hillside, favoured them, in contrast to their relatively clumsy opponents. Second, the Mysore army could never maintain a permanent presence in the region, given the fact that the Wodeyar kingdom had several open frontiers.

More than a century earlier, Lewis Rice, had written:

> Dodda Virappa evinced throughout his long and vigorous reign an unconquerable spirit, and though surrounded by powerful neighbours, neither the number nor the strength of this enemies seems to have relaxed his courage or damped his enterprise. He died in 1736, 78 years old. Two of his wives ascended the funeral pile with the dead body of the Raja.

## Assessment: the period and its historiography

From the mid-15th century to the mid-18th century rulers of states in southern India commenced financing wars on a different footing than had their predecessors. According to historian Burton Stein, all the rulers of the Mysore and Coorg region—the Vijayanagara emperors, the *Wodeyars* of Mysore, the *Nayakas* of Ikkeri, the *Subahdars* of Sira, and the *Rajas* of Coorg—fall to some degree under this category. A similar political system, referred to as "military fiscalism" by French historian Martin Wolfe, took hold in Europe between the 15th and 17th centuries. During this time, according to Wolfe, most regimes in Western Europe emerged from the aristocracy to become absolute monarchies; they simultaneously reduced their dependence on the aristocracy by expanding the tax base and developing an extensive tax collection structure. In Stein's words,

> Previously resistant aristocracies were eventually won over in early modern Europe by being offered state offices and honours and by being protected in their patrimonial wealth, but this was only after monarchies had proven their ability to defeat antiquated feudal forces and had found alternative resources in cities and from trade.

In southern India, none of the pre-1760 regimes were able to achieve the "fiscal absolutism" of their European contemporaries. Local chieftains, who had close ties with their social groups, and who had only recently risen from them, opposed the excessive monetary demands of a more powerful regional ruler. Consequently, the larger states of this period in southern India, were not able to entirely change their mode of creating wealth from one of extracting tribute payments, which were seldom regular, to that of direct collection of taxes by government officials. Extorting tribute under threat of military action, according to Stein, is not true "military fiscalism," although it is a means of approaching it. This partial or limited military fiscalism began during the Vijayanagara Empire, setting the latter apart from the more "segmentary" regimes that had preceded it, and was a prominent feature of all regimes during the period 1565–1760; true military fiscalism was not achieved in the region until the rule of Tipu Sultan in the 1780s.

Stein's formulation has been criticized by historian Sanjay Subrahmanyam on account of the lack of extensive historiography for the period. The 18th-century Wodeyar rulers of Mysore—in contrast to their contemporaries in Rajputana, Central India, Maratha Deccan, and Tanjavur—left little or no record of their administrations. Surveying the historiography, Subrahmanyam, says:

> A major problem attendant on such generalisations by modern historians concerning pre-1760 Mysore is, however, the paucity of documentation on this older 'Old Regime'.

The first explicit *History* of Mysore in English is *Historical Sketches of the South of India, in an attempt to trace the History of Mysoor* by Mark Wilks. Wilks claimed to have based his history on various Kannada language documents, many of which have not survived. According to, all subsequent histories of Mysore have borrowed heavily from Wilks's book for their pre-1760 content. These include Lewis Rice's well-known *Gazetteer* of 1897 and C. Hayavadana Rao's major revision of the *Gazetteer* half a century later, and many modern spin-offs of these two works. In Subrahmanyam's words, "Wilks's work is an important one therefore, not only for its own sake, but for its having been regurgitated and reproduced time and again with minor variations."

A Wodeyar dynasty genealogy, the *Chikkadevaräya Vamśävali* of Tirumalarya, was composed in Kannada during the period 1710–1715, and was claimed to be based on all the then-extant inscriptions in the region. Another genealogy, *Kalale Doregala Vamśävali*, of the *Delvoys*, the near-hereditary chief ministers of Mysore, was composed around the turn of the 19th century. However, neither manuscript provides information about administration, economy or military capability. The ruling dynasty's origins, especially as expounded in later palace genealogies, are also of doubtful accuracy; this is, in part, because the Wodeyars, who were reinstated by the British on the Mysore *gaddi* in 1799, to preside over a fragile sovereignty, "obsessively" attempted to demonstrate their "unbroken" royal lineage, to bolster their then uncertain status.

The earliest manuscript offering clues to governance and military conflict in the pre-1760 Mysore, seems to be Dias (Dias 1725), an annual letter written in Portuguese by a Mysore-based Jesuit missionary, Joachim Dias, and addressed to his Provincial superior. After the East India Company's final 1799 victory over Tipu Sultan, official Company records began to be published as well; these include a collection of Anglo-Mysore Wars-related correspondence between the company's officials in India and Court of Directors in London, and the first report on the new Princely State of Mysore by its resident, Mark Wilks. Around this time, French accounts of the Anglo-Mysore wars appeared as well and included a history of the wars by Joseph-François Michaud, another Jesuit priest. The first attempt at including a comprehensive history of Mysore in an English language work is an account of a survey of South India conducted at Lord Richard Wellesley's request, by Francis Buchanan, a Scottish physician and geographer. By the end of the period of British Commissionership of Mysore (1831–1881), many English language works had begun to appear on a variety of Mysore-related subjects. These included a book of English translations of Kannada language inscriptions by Lewis Rice, and William Digby's two-volume critique of British famine policy during the Great Famine of 1876–78, which devastated Mysore for many years afterwards.,

## Citations

1. UNESCO & World Heritage Convention 1986.
2. Black 1996, p. 22.
3. Stein 1987, pp. 118–119.
4. Subrahmanyam 2002, p. 133.
5. Stein 1987, pp. 49–50.
6. Brittlebank 1997, p. 17.
7. Simmons 2019, p. 6.
8. Michell 1995, p. 18.
9. Stein 1985, p. 392.
10. Robb 2011, p. 66.
11. Michell & Zebrowski 1999, pp. 17–18.
12. Subrahmanyam 2012, p. 69.
13. Stein 2013, p. 198.
14. Stein 1987, p. 83.
15. Robb 2011, pp. 103–104.
16. Subrahmanyam 2002, p. 33–35.
17. Stein 1987, p. 123.
18. Ahmed 2011, p. 315.
19. Asher & Talbot 2006, p. 175.
20. Roy 2015, p. 74.
21. Hunt & Stern 2015, p. 9.
22. Roy 2013, p. 33.
23. Gordon 2007, p. 92.
24. Ravishankar 2018, p. 360.
25. Knipe 2015, p. 40.
26. Kamdar 2018, p. 41.
27. Stein 1987, p. 82.
28. Manor 1975, p. 33.
29. Ramusack 2004, p. 28.
30. Michell 1995, pp. 17–.
31. Simmons 2019, p. 126.
32. Simmons 2019, pp. 6–8.
33. Subrahmanyam 1989, pp. 208–209.
34. Bandyopadhyay 2004, p. 33.
35. Stein 1985, pp. 400–401.
36. Nagaraj 2003, pp. 378–379.
37. Subrahmanyam 1989, p. 212.
38. Subrahmanyam 1989, p. 213.
39. Rice 1897a, p. 370.
40. Stein 1987, pp. 83–84.
41. Disney 1978, p. 2.
42. Disney 1978, p. 4.
43. Disney 1978, p. 5.
44. Ames 2000, p. 11.
45. Ames 2000, p. 157.
46. Ames 2000, pp. 157–158.
47. Ames 2000, pp. 158–159.
48. Ames 2000, p. 159.
49. Ames 2000, p. 160.
50. Rice 1908, pp. 175–176.
51. Rice 1908, p. 166.
52. Rice 1908, p. 19.
53. Rice 1897b, p. 166.
54. Rice 1897b, p. 521.
55. Rice 1897a, p. 589.
56. Rice 1897a, pp. 574–575.
57. "Settlement (n), 10", *Oxford English Dictionary*, Oxford University Press, retrieved 24 October 2020
58. Rice 1897a, pp. 589–590.
59. Rice 1878, p. 99.
60. Subrahmanyam 1989, p. 99.
61. Rice 1878, p. 105.
62. Rice 1878, p. 106.
63. Subrahmanyam 1989, pp. 217–218.
64. Subrahmanyam 1989, pp. 218–219.
65. Subrahmanyam 1989, p. 220.
66. Rice 1878, p. 107.
67. Stein 1985, pp. 391–392.
68. Stein 1985, pp. 392–393.
69. Stein 1987, p. 206.
70. Wilks 1811, p. 1.
71. Subrahmanyam 1989, p. 206.
72. Ikegame 2007, p. 17.
73. Nair 2006, pp. 139–140.
74. Bhagavan 2008, p. 887.
75. Subrahmanyam 1989, pp. 215–216.
76. East India Company 1800.
77. Wilks 1805.
78. Michaud 1809.
79. Buchanan 1807.
80. Rice 1879.
81. Digby 1878.

## Sources used

### Secondary sources

### Primary sources


title: Political history of Estonia

abstract: The political history of Estonia covers the political events and trends in the country throughout its historical period.

text:
# Political history of Estonia

The **political history of Estonia** covers the political events and trends in the country throughout its historical period.

## Pre-independence Estonia, before 1918

Before becoming a modern nation state, Estonia was part of the Danish, Swedish, and Russian Empires. The Duchy of Estonia was a direct dominion of the King of Denmark from 1219 until 1346. After the Saint George's Night Uprising, the Danes sold the territory to the Teutonic Order and it became part of the Ordensstaat. A second Duchy of Estonia was a dominion of the Swedish Empire from 1561 until 1721 during the time that most or all of Estonia was under Swedish rule. The land was eventually ceded to Russia in the Treaty of Nystad, following its capitulation, during the plague, in the Great Northern War.

During the Russian rule, the Mahtra War was a peasant uprising against the authorities in 1858. The Russification policies intensified under the governorship of Sergei Shakhovsky from 1885 onwards. At the same time, Estonian nationalism began to be formed in student associations. Part of this was the Young Estonia movement, established in 1905. Following the February Revolution of the Russian Revolution, the Russian Provisional Government incorporated the Governorate of Livonia into Estonia, and also formed the Estonian Provincial Assembly, which organised elections in 1917. On 28 November, the Assembly decided to break from Russia following the October Revolution.

## First era of independence, 1918–1940

### Conflicts

Between retreating Russian and advancing German troops, and the nearing occupation by the German Empire, the Salvation Committee of the Estonian Provincial Assembly declared on 24 February 1918 the independence of Estonia. The German Empire did not recognise the newly-declared Republic of Estonia. However, after the defeat of the Central Powers in World War I in November 1918, Germany withdrew its troops from Estonia, and formally handed power in Estonia over to the Estonian Provisional Government on 19 November. The Estonian War of Independence followed against the Bolshevik westward offensive of 1918–1919 and the 1919 aggression of the *Baltische Landeswehr*. On 2 February 1920, the Peace Treaty of Tartu was signed by the Republic of Estonia and RSFSR. The terms of the treaty stated that Russia renounced in perpetuity all rights to the territory of Estonia. Meanwhile, Viktor Kingissepp had led a communist uprising at Saaremaa in February 1919, which had been suppressed with 81 rebels killed in battle and 82 executed. Another conflict arose with the Walk crisis with Latvia over a border town, though this was peacefully resolved.

### Constitutional democracy and its challenges

The Constitution of Estonia adopted on 21 December 1920 gave universal suffrage with proportional representation. The Head of State of Estonia combined some of the functions held by a president and prime minister in most other democracies. Fourteen parties were represented in 1923, causing coalition governments to be the norm. The 1924 Estonian coup d'état attempt conducted by the Comintern, was a failed coup attempt in Estonia staged by Communists (mostly infiltrated from Soviet Union) on December 1, 1924. Of the 279 actively participating communists, 125 were killed in action, later more than 500 people were arrested. The government forces lost 26 men.

Between 1924 and 1934, there were 16 different coalition governments formed. The Vaps Movement emerged in reaction with a demand for a smaller parliament and a directly elected president. The Movement was a paramilitary anti-socialist organisation led by former officers of the Russian Tsar's Army, with most of its base being veterans of the Estonian War of Independence. The organisation also advocated a more authoritarian and nationalist government in Estonia. In 1933, a referendum approved a new constitution passing the Movement's demands on the parliament and presidency. Ahead of the following year's elections for both, a state of emergency was declared on 12 March 1934 to prevent the Vaps candidate from winning, with the vote postponed and political gatherings banned.

### Authoritarian rule

During the authoritarian rule following 1934, decision-making was made by Konstantin Päts and his close circle, chosen in large part from his family. Opposition parties were banned. So too were trade unions, while the press was censored and legislation passed by presidential decree rather through the parliament.

## War and occupation, 1940–1991

### Soviet takeover

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact gave the Soviet Union free rein to act in Estonia as it wished. Following the Orzeł incident, the Soviets demanded military bases in the country, to which the Estonia acquiesced. This did not initially affect life in the country. On 17 June 1940, the Red Army emerged from its military bases in Estonia and, aided by an additional 90,000 Soviet troops, took over the country, occupying the entire territory of the Republic of Estonia,. Most of the Estonian Defence Forces and the Estonian Defence League surrendered according to the orders and were disarmed by the Red Army. The Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was soon established and joined the Soviet Union.

### Nazi occupation and defeat

In the course of Operation Barbarossa, Nazi Germany occupied Estonia in July 1941. The Estonian Self-Administration was the puppet government set up in Estonia during the occupation of Estonia by Nazi Germany. It was headed by Hjalmar Mäe. The Estonian Self-Administration was subordinated to the administration of Generalbezirk Estland and its directors were appointed by the chief of the Generalbezirk, Commissioner-General Karl-Siegmund Litzmann. After the German departure, Tallinn was held for four days by a native Estonian government led by Otto Tief. The Estonian government-in-exile was formally declared as the governmental authority of the Republic of Estonia in exile from 1944. Around 10,000 fighters opposed the Soviets with guerrilla warfare.

### Soviet rule

In 1950, the Communist Party of Estonia was taken over by Johannes Käbin in a coup. After 103 senior officials had been purged from leadership positions, he would stay in power until 1978. He was replaced by Karl Vaino, who pursued a Russification policy. The Letter of 40 intellectuals in 1980 was a sign of dissent against the Soviet authorities. In 1987, protests began against proposed phosphate mining. Vaino was replaced by Vaino Väljas, a native Estonian. The Intermovement organisation was established to support the preservation of the Soviet Union in 1988. In November of the same year, the Supreme Soviet of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic gave the Estonian Sovereignty Declaration. The declaration asserted Estonia's sovereignty and the supremacy of the Estonian laws over the laws of the Soviet Union.

In 1989, independence activists formed a mass movement called the Estonian Citizens' Committees and started registering persons who were Estonian citizens by birth according to the *jus sanguinis* principle. In February 1990, the election of a body of representatives of these citizens – the Congress of Estonia – was conducted by those who had been registered. The Estonian National Independence Party won the most seats. Other parties represented included the Popular Front of Estonia. An independence referendum was held on 3 March 1991, which approved it by 78.4% of voters with an 82.9% turnout. Independence was restored by the Estonian Supreme Council on the night of 20 August.

## Second era of independence, 1991–present

In September 1991, a Constituent Assembly was formed of equal numbers of members of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Estonia and the Congress of Estonia to work out a new Constitution for the Republic. The new constitution was approved by referendum in June 1992, using the constitution replacement process specified in the 1938 constitution as a matter of legal continuity of the Republic of Estonia. Both the Congress of Estonia and the Supreme Council dissolved themselves in October 1992, with the swearing-in of the first parliament *(Riigikogu)* elected under the new constitution in September 1992. Many Russians in Estonia were disenfranchised from the election, with the question of their citizenship caused ongoing political tensions. Territorial issues with Russia caused another source of potential conflict. Nevertheless, Russian troops finally left the country in 1994.

Estonia joined NATO on 29 March 2004 and EU on 1 May 2004. Amid political controversy, in April 2007 the Government of Estonia started final preparations for the relocation of the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn stature and reburial of the associated remains, according to the political mandate received from the previous elections (held in March 2007). Disagreement over the appropriateness of the action led to mass protests and riots (accompanied by looting), lasting for two nights, the worst in Estonia since 1944. A series of cyberattacks which began on 27 April 2007 and targeted websites of Estonian organizations, including Estonian parliament, banks, ministries, newspapers and broadcasters, amid the country's disagreement with Russia.

In August 2011, President Toomas Hendrik Ilves was re-elected in a vote in parliament for the second five-year term. Center-right Reform Party was the biggest party in 2011 and 2015 parliamentary elections. Estonian prime minister Andrus Ansip resigned in March 2014, after nine years in office since 2005. He wanted his successor to lead the Reform Party into 2015 elections. In April 2014, Taavi Rõivas of the Reform party became new prime minister.

In October 2016, Estonian parliament elected Kersti Kaljulaid as the new President of Estonia. She was the first female president of Estonia. In the parliamentary elections of 2019, five parties gained seats at Riigikogu. The head of the Centre Party, Jüri Ratas, formed the government together with Conservative People's Party and Isamaa, while Reform Party and Social Democratic Party became the opposition. On 26 January 2021, Reform Party leader Kaja Kallas became Estonia's first female prime minister, making Estonia the only country in the world to currently be led by both a female President and Prime Minister. The new government was a two-party coalition between country's two biggest political parties Reform Party and Centre Party. However, Mr. Alar Karis was sworn in as Estonia's sixth President on October 11, 2021.

In July 2022, Prime Minister Kaja Kallas formed a new three-party coalition by her liberal Reform Party, the Social Democrats and the conservative Isamaa party. Her previous government had lost its parliamentary majority after the center-left Center Party left the coalition.

In March 2023, the Reform party, led by Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, won the parliamentary election, taking 31,4% of the vote. Far-right Conservative People's Party came second with 16,1 % and the third was the Centre Party with 15% of the vote. In April 2023, Kallas formed her third government, which included, in addition to Reform Party, also the liberal Estonia 200 and the Social Democratic (SDE) parties.

In July 2024, Kristen Michal became Estonia’s new prime minister to succeed Kaja Kallas, who resigned as prime minister on July 15 to become the European Union’s new High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.


title: Ponteshio Dam

abstract: (Japanese: ポンテシオダム) Ponteshio Dam is a gravity dam located in Hokkaido Prefecture in Japan. The dam is used for power production. The catchment area of the dam is 93.8 km⁲. The dam impounds about 19 ha of land when full and can store 996 thousand cubic meters of water. The construction of the dam was started on 1979 and completed in 1983.

text:
# Ponteshio Dam

**Ponteshio Dam** (Japanese: ポンテシオダム) is a gravity dam located in Hokkaido Prefecture in Japan. The dam is used for power production. The catchment area of the dam is 93.8 km2. The dam impounds about 19 ha of land when full and can store 996 thousand cubic meters of water. The construction of the dam was started on 1979 and completed in 1983.

## InfoBox

| Ponteshio Dam | |
| --- | --- |
| Location of Ponteshio Dam in Japan | |
| Location | Hokkaido Prefecture, Japan |
| Coordinates | 43°58′43″N 142°45′12″E / 43.97861°N 142.75333°E / 43.97861; 142.75333 |
| Construction began | 1979 |
| Opening date | 1983 |
| Dam and spillways | |
| Height | 22.3m |
| Length | 126.2m |
| Reservoir | |
| Total capacity | 996 thousand cubic meters |
| Catchment area | 93.8 sq. km |
| Surface area | 19 hectares |


title: Pomasia salutaris

abstract: Pomasia salutaris is a moth in the family Geometridae. It is found on Sumatra, Peninsular Malaysia and Borneo. The habitat consists of the upper montane zone up to altitudes of 2,110 meters.

text:
# Pomasia salutaris

***Pomasia salutaris*** is a moth in the family Geometridae. It is found on Sumatra, Peninsular Malaysia and Borneo. The habitat consists of the upper montane zone up to altitudes of 2,110 meters.

## InfoBox

| *Pomasia salutaris* | |
| --- | --- |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Arthropoda |
| Class: | Insecta |
| Order: | Lepidoptera |
| Family: | Geometridae |
| Genus: | *Pomasia* |
| Species: | ***P. salutaris*** |
| Binomial name | |
| ***Pomasia salutaris***<br>Prout, 1929 | |
|
| Synonyms | |
| * *Pomasia vernacularia salutaris* Prout, 1929 | |


title: Polycoccum laursenii

abstract: Polycoccum laursenii is a species of lichenicolous fungus in the family Polycoccaceae. It was first described as a new species in 2004 by Russian mycologist Mikhail Petrovich Zhurbenko. It is found in Alaska and in Russia. It is similar to Polycoccum cladoniae but differs from it in having smaller spores.

text:
# Polycoccum laursenii

***Polycoccum laursenii*** is a species of lichenicolous fungus in the family Polycoccaceae. It was first described as a new species in 2004 by Russian mycologist Mikhail Petrovich Zhurbenko. It is found in Alaska and in Russia.

It is similar to *Polycoccum cladoniae* but differs from it in having smaller spores.

## Ecology

*Polycoccum laursenii* is a lichenicolous fungus, meaning that it infects lichens. Its only documented host species is *Cladonia pocillum*.

## InfoBox

| *Polycoccum laursenii* | |
| --- | --- |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Fungi |
| Division: | Ascomycota |
| Class: | Dothideomycetes |
| Order: | Trypetheliales |
| Family: | Polycoccaceae |
| Genus: | *Polycoccum* |
| Species: | ***P. laursenii*** |
| Binomial name | |
| ***Polycoccum laursenii***<br>Zhurb. (2004) | |
|


title: Polycnemum arvense

abstract: Polycnemum arvense is a species of flowering plant belonging to the family Amaranthaceae. It is native to Europe to China.

text:
# Polycnemum arvense

***Polycnemum arvense*** is a species of flowering plant belonging to the family Amaranthaceae.

It is native to Europe to China.

## InfoBox

| *Polycnemum arvense* | |
| --- | --- |
|  | |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Kingdom: | Plantae |
| *Clade*: | Tracheophytes |
| *Clade*: | Angiosperms |
| *Clade*: | Eudicots |
| Order: | Caryophyllales |
| Family: | Amaranthaceae |
| Genus: | *Polycnemum* |
| Species: | ***P. arvense*** |
| Binomial name | |
| ***Polycnemum arvense***<br>L. | |
|