The King and his policymakers gather in a large building making laws for the people in lands far from the towers of the capital. The leaders imposed a biased system of judgement that took away the opportunities for localities to make their own decisions. People proclaimed that citizens should be judged by their “peers” instead of the new system that condemned individuals without sufficient evidence.
These policymakers advocated actions that violated the privacy rights of individuals as well. The people were shocked that their basic liberties guaranteed by law were disregarded, putting those in charge above the law. The King adopted costly and failing endeavours pushed by the elites that many citizens did not want. The huge financial cost of blunders made by those in power negatively impacted the local governments that had little voice in financial matters. Tax money was wasted on ventures that a growing number of citizens began to oppose. Local residents were forced to use products supplied by merchants connected to the regime when cheaper or superior alternatives existed elsewhere.
Some citizens began to question the decisions made by the King and his inner circle. At first those who raised their voices against the regime were characterized as radicals. The protestors claimed that the pubic had no representation in the creation of policies that impacted their local communities. Significant financial power supported the King and his administration, making the odds of overthrowing his regime low. Some of the policymakers were sympathetic towards the citizens who wanted a voice in lawmaking, but most followed the marching orders of the King’s inner circle. The King had control over the localities and could remove their local leaders if they joined the rebellion. A few brave souls spoke out, but many felt the political pressure to abide by the King’s proclamations. The policymakers claimed they virtually represented the communities even though the populace had not directly elected them as representatives.
As policy was implemented and conditions worsened in the lands, more moderates joined the rebels. Some stayed loyal to the crown, possibly loyal for the sake of being loyal, or they may have benefited from the powerful and their regulations. The rebels, growing in numbers, organized boycotts and protests. The King tried to squash critical comments by canceling public meetings in rebellious territories. The people cried “we have no voice” in the matters of our state. Many commoners wondered why the King and the ruling aristocracy were not subject to the very policies they advocated. Citizens and their local legislators began to meet and devise plans to take their governing powers back.
In reaction to public outcry, the King and the policymakers made small changes to the laws. Most knowledgeable persons knew the adjustments were meaningless – meant to placate the masses. A noted author wrote that it was “common sense” to break free from the “reign” of elites that were far removed from their localities and day-to-day lives. Speakers proclaimed to give the people “liberty” and citizens should join their “brethren” in the streets protesting harmful mandates.
Groups of correspondence spread the word. A congress of advocates met to unite efforts against the King’s agenda across the regions. People wanted laws that reflected the “consent of the governed” rather than the views of the aristocracy. Lists of grievances were drawn up outlining the reasons for rebellion against the King and his inner circle. Localities signed resolutions against the policies of the King and the ruling class.
Rebellion was in the air.
Could we substitute the following pictures for those above?