Are there any examples of a king or dictator choosing to give up power by moving towards a more democratic governmental system?

Question

I'm looking for examples, if any, where the head of a government actively strove to move towards a more democratic system, despite doing so requiring them to give up personal power. I'd accept any individual who had a large amount of ruling power and expectation of being able to maintain that power, be it king, dictator, or some other type of leader.

I'm looking for someone who actively facilitated a migration to a democratic system, not one that had it forced upon them. Giving up power to avoid an uprising, assassination, or other worse fate wouldn't count. Put simply I'm looking for cases when a leader chose to give up power.

Assuming any such case existed I'd be interested in a brief description of how it happened. Specifically what was the stated, and actual, motive of the leader for wanting to do so, and how effective was their effort in creating a persistent move towards a more democratic systems?

Answer 1

Bhutan is the best example I can think of - the 'Dragon King' of Bhutan, Jigme Singye Wangchuck ruled the country for 33 years, and then voluntarily devolved power to transform his kingdom into a parliamentary democracy.

Pavan K. Varma, an Ambassador of India to Bhutan in 2009 describes this transformation in an article he wrote for The Hindu newspaper:

In March 2008 , the kingdom of Bhutan ... became the world’s youngest democracy. An absolute monarchy gave way to a constitutional monarchy, a new Constitution mandating a parliamentary democracy was adopted, and, for the first time, the people of Bhutan voted, on the basis of universal suffrage, to elect a new Parliament consisting of a National Council or Upper House with 25 members, and a National Assembly or Lower House with 47 members.

... The Wangchuck dynasty came to power in 1907 by uniting a bunch of warring chieftains. The fourth king in this dynasty, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, assumed power in July 1972 ... Jigme Wangchuck brought to the throne a wisdom and sagacity that belied his youthfulness and lack of experience ... First, he transferred most of his powers to a nominated Council of Ministers, thereby volitionally diluting the concentration of power in the throne.

Finally, and most dramatically, in December 2005, when he was only 50 years of age, he announced his decision to abdicate from the throne in 2008 in favour of his eldest son, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck. This announcement was accompanied by a royal command that work on a new Constitution must begin immediately with the express purpose of converting Bhutan into a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy.

Why did Jigme Singye Wangchuck ... take these momentous decisions which would curtail his own absolute powers, especially since there was no political restlessness seeking a change of the polity? ... The answer quite simply is that Jigme Wangchuck had the political incisiveness, rarely seen in monarchs, to pre-empt history. He knew that in a rapidly globalising world, Bhutan could not sustain its isolationist path; he also knew, looking at developments in neighbouring Nepal, that sooner or later there would be a democratic challenge to an absolute monarchy. In view of this, he chose to anticipate the inevitable by initiating change himself. - How democracy took roots in Bhutan

Answer 2

He's in the doghouse these days for dodgy financials and elephant safaris but Juan Carlos of Spain seems to somewhat fit the role in 1975.

King Juan Carlos I began his reign as head of state without leaving the confines of Franco's legal system. As such, he swore fidelity to the Principles of the Movimiento Nacional (National Movement), the political system of the Franco era; took possession of the crown before the Francoist Cortes Españolas; and respected the Organic Law of the State for the appointment of his first head of government. Only in his speech before the Cortes did he indicate his support for a transformation of the Spanish political system. *

Franco and Francoism had strong, if complex, monarchist tendencies and a restored democracy was not obviously to the king's interest after Franco's death.

The 1947 Law of Succession made Spain a de jure kingdom again, but defined Franco as the head of state for life with the power to choose the person to become King of Spain and his successor.

In 1947, Franco proclaimed Spain a monarchy through the Ley de Sucesión en la Jefatura del Estado act but did not designate a monarch. He had no particular desire for a king because of his strained relations with the legitimate heir to the Crown, Juan of Bourbon. Therefore, he left the throne vacant with himself as regent and set the basis for his succession. This gesture was largely done to appease monarchist factions within the Movement.

* if there ever are occasions where one of those lame "person X reacts to event Y" YouTube videos would be good, this would surely be one of them. Would have loved to see the faces of the political attendees.

Answer 3

Augusto Pinochet in Chile, head of a military coup in 1973, and subsequently leader of a military junta which governed the country for sixteen years. The junta suspended any previous government, and Pinochet eventually was installed (without democratic process) as president. In 1981, a newly-crafted constitution took effect (through a democratic process of sorts--although its legitimacy is hotly debated to this day). This new constitution called for the institution of democratic presidential elections after a transition period, where Pinochet participated as a candidate, but lost to Patricio Aylwin.

A referendum on whether Augusto Pinochet, the head of a military dictatorship, should become president for eight years under resumed civilian rule was held in Chile on October 5, 1988. The "No" side won with 56% of the vote, marking the end of Pinochet's 16-and-a-half-year rule. Democratic elections were held in 1989, leading to the establishment of a new government in 1990. Wikipedia

About the reasons he had for supporting this referendum, it would seem that it was in hopes of being validated as a democratically elected leader, in order to stay in power for an extended time. However, from a pragmatic point of view, the referendum was apparently carried out legitimately, and he eventually respected the result, spending quite some time at the end of his life in a bad public light mainly because of human rights violations under his rule; although he was never properly processed as a criminal.

Answer 4

King George Tupou V of Tonga gave up a lot of his power in favor of a constitutional monarchy in 2010. From what I can tell, this move wasn't exactly spearheaded by the monarch himself. There had been agitation among the Tongan people for more representation in the years prior, including pro-democracy riots in 2006; and there had been concerns about financial mismanagement during his father's reign. Still, Tupou V was quoted as being in favor of the reforms at the time, saying that

I think it's a natural development of the original 19th century constitution. It's an attempt to take the principles of that constitution and apply them in 21st century idiom, which of course has to be democracy. ... I have always wanted to do this for the country, and it's a very practical idea, our political life has to travel the same speed, the same level as the development of our economic life.

Answer 5

Queen Mary could have taken the English throne in her own right as an absolute monarch like her father James II, but instead insisted on ruling jointly with her husband William of Orange and accepted the Declaration of Right which for the first time set out the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown.

Answer 6

South Africa's F. W. de Klerk comes to mind.

Quoting Wikipedia:

After Botha resigned in 1989, de Klerk replaced him, first as leader of the NP and then as State President. Although observers expected him to continue Botha's defence of apartheid, de Klerk decided to end the policy. He was aware that growing ethnic animosity and violence was leading South Africa into a racial civil war. // ... //

He permitted anti-apartheid marches to take place, legalised a range of previously banned anti-apartheid political parties, and freed imprisoned anti-apartheid activists such as Nelson Mandela. He also dismantled South Africa's nuclear weapons program.

He received the Nobel Prize in 1993 jointly with Nelson Mandela for steering the country out of apartheid and into a democratic nation.

See also Britannica's article.

Answer 7

As an aside to the above correct answers, you might also find it interesting to read about King Sihanouk of Cambodia, who did the opposite - he's a King who introduced democracy to increase his power!

The King, as a largely ceremonial figurehead, spent the 40s and early 50s winning Cambodia's independence from France and shaping it as a nice, palatable modern parliamentary democracy. He then abdicated as King to run for the (far more powerful) office of Prime Minister, knowing he had many safe votes in a country where the notion of the Deva-raja (God-King) still held some sway.