Duumvirate (pronounced doo-uhm-ver-it)
(1) A coalition of two persons holding the same office at the head of government.
(2) The office or government of two such persons.
1656: From the Latin duumvirātus (one of two officers or magistrates jointly exercising the same public function), the construct being duumviri (the office held in the Roman Republic by two joint magistrates and plural of duumvir) + -atus. Duumviri was from the Old Latin, the construct being duum (of two) + vir (man) and a duumvir was one who served in the office of a duumvirate. The Latin suffix -ātus was from the Proto-Italic -ātos, from the primitive Indo-European -ehtos. It’s regarded as a "pseudo-participle" and perhaps related to –tus although though similar formations in other Indo-European languages indicate it was distinct from it already in early Indo-European times. It was cognate with the Proto-Slavic –atъ and the Proto-Germanic -ōdaz (the English form being -ed (having). The feminine form was –āta, the neuter –ātum and it was used to form adjectives from nouns indicating the possession of a thing or a quality. In Ancient Greece, a similar polity was a diarchy, the construct in the Ancient Greek being δι- (di-) (double) + -αρχία, (-arkhía) (ruled).
In political science, a diarchy (Greek) or duumvirate (Latin) is a form of government characterized by co-rule, two people ruling a polity together, either lawfully or by collusion & force and such leaders can be styled as co-rulers. Inventions in language have occurred such as biarchy and tandemocracy though none became common use, unlike co-regency, used still to describe a monarchy temporarily controlled by two. Under the Raj, diarchy was often used to refer to the system of “shared rule”, a colonial fix of which the British were the cynical masters. Native Indian representation in government had long been a feature of British India and it was formalized in the Indian Councils Act (1892), the powers further devolved in the Government of India Acts (1919 (implementing the Montague-Chelmsford reforms) & 1935).
Under the Raj, provincial governments included British members (executive councilors) and Indian members (ministers from the legislative council). So that administrative authority could be conferred on Indian members, the diarchy was introduced and with it the concept of transferred and reserved subjects. The transferred subjects included law and order, revenue & justice; the reserved subjects included education & public health etc so in this way, so typical of British colonial rule, Indians gained control over large parts of the government which dealt directly with the people while authority over critical matters (money, defense, foreign affairs, internal order) remained under the purview of British executive councilors. Diarchy operated in the Indian provinces between 1921- 1937 before being replaced by provincial autonomy in 1937.
However, those uses on the sub-continent reflect the post-classical practice to use both duumvirate and diarchy to describe just about any arrangement where the highest office or institution in a state (and often other places too) is not in the hands of a single individual. A duumvirate, as originally defined, referred to the offices of the various duumviri (of two) under the Roman Republic and while there were later triumvirates (of three) and beyond, it was usually the Roman practice to use duumvirate in the sense of “rule by more than one”.
A classical duumvirate is obviously still possible but while instances of genuine co-rule are rare, the shared model has proved a useful tactic in states where the lines of geographic definition don’t align with tribal, religious or ethnic identity. There, presidencies can be shared, sometimes on a sequential basis (which is another expression of co-rule) but also simultaneously, an illustrative example of which is the office of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a three-member body which collectively serves as head of state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Each member elected from a defined region (the Bosniak and Croat members from a joint constituency in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serb from the Republika Srpska. The office of the presidency exists as the collective head with one member elected as chairperson which is rotational, changing every eight months; the incumbent thus primus inter pares (first among equals).
Even when an arrangement of two is described as a duumvirate, and may contain some elements of co-rule, it need not of necessity be a system of co-equal rule. Gough Whitlam (1916-2014; Prime Minister of Australia 1972-1975), always anxious to flaunt his learning before his adoring acolytes, eagerly dug up duumvirate to describe the two man ministry which, for a fortnight, constituted the first Whitlam government but it was merely a device of convenience, the deputy prime-minister (Lance Barnard, 1919-1997, Deputy Prime Minister of Australia 1972-1974) a mere cipher for Whitlam’s initiatives. The so-called duumvirate actually turned out to be the best days of the Whitlam government; from there it was mostly downhill. It was a thing made possible only because the results in some seats wouldn’t be known immediately after the 1972 election and thus the names available to be included in the ministry wouldn’t be known for two weeks. This gave Whitlam the excuse he needed; the Australian Labor Party (ALP) having been in opposition for twenty-three years, he wasn’t prepared to wait. Thus, Whitlam had the governor-general swear him in as prime minister and Barnard as deputy leader, the two men sharing the twenty-seven portfolios during the fortnight before a full cabinet could be determined. The “duumvirate” proved a model of administrative efficiency, not something much said of the subsequent cabinet (1972-1975) which, the ALP then in an “egalitarian” phase, insisted should contain all members of the ministry, not the traditional dozen-odd with the others serving in an “outer ministry”. It was an unwieldy apparatus and the ALP has not subsequently repeated the error; there have been plenty of other mistakes just not that one.
Australia’s tradition of coalition governments has also tempted many to use hyphenated forms to describe administrations although the practice has never been consistent. The short-lived Reid-McLean ministry (1904-1905) was an example but the moniker was both something of a necessity to distinguish it from the previous Reid ministry in New South Wales (NSW) and a tribute to what sounds one of the more improbable political coalitions: Free traders & protectionists. Tellingly, it didn’t last long. There was also the more enduring Bruce-Page government (1923-1929) although it’s only subsequent Country (National) Party leaders who have been inclined to adopt the style.
The kings being immune from attack (except by the witch), they are powerful attacking pieces and it’s not hard to believe the rules of the game were written by a king on his throne. However, the game would suit not all kings because to take advantage of the rules, a king must be both (1) aggressive early in the game and (2) maintain a position cognizant the enemy witch may sacrifice herself, making the king suddenly vulnerable to the enemy pieces. King Gustav never indicated if he'd enjoyed some experience of self-sacrificing witches or if the rule was just an imaginative flourish but it is a vital aspect of Diarchic Chess, in one move perhaps transforming the contest. In practice, it’s a radically different game.
No comments:
Post a Comment