Grand Remonstrance (Suren Confederacy)
The Grand Remonstrance of 1729 AN was a legislative act passed by the Majles-e Suren (Parliament of the Suren Confederacy) during its 8th session under the reign of Shahbanu Mitradokht. It represented a rare instance of the appointed legislature openly protesting against the mismanagement of state affairs by the central government.
Background
By the late 1720s, the Suren Confederacy found itself in a dire financial situation stemming from the immense costs of the Kapavian insurgency (1715-1717) and subsequent Wars of the Disinherited. To fund the military campaigns, the government had relied heavily on loans from foreign institutions like the Honourable Company and Euran Economic Union.
When repayment became difficult, the Committee of Euran Salvation pressured the Suren court in 1722 to establish the Board of Creditors to reorganise state finances. This Board, dominated by foreign powers like Constancia and the other members of the Community of Goldfield, gained significant influence over Suren's economic policies.
Additionally, between 1717 AN and 1719 AN, the Majles had authorised four "Amicable Grants" which were in essence forced levies extorted from the wealthy citizens to raise funds for the wars. This extremely unpopular measure angered the provincial nobility and merchant classes.
The Remonstrance
In this climate of economic misery and resentment against foreign interference, the 8th Majles session in 1729 passed the "Act of Remonstrance" to voice grievances against royal policies. Its key provisions included:
- A prohibition on any further "Amicable Grants" or similar extortionate levies on the populace.
- A demand for greater representation of satrapies in national governance.
- Calls for curbing the powers of the Board of Creditors over state finances.
- Requests for reducing the footprint of foreign military forces like the Constancian garrisons.
The Remonstrance highlighted the increasing assertiveness of the Majles, which had transitioned from a rubber-stamp body to one willing to challenge perceived misrule, at least through legislative means permitted by the monarchy.
Legacy
While the Grand Remonstrance did not result in immediate reform, it foreshadowed growing regional discontents that would culminate in the Bitter Spring challenging central authority in the following. It also demonstrated the quasi-colonial subservience of Suren to powers like Constancia and the other creditors.
Ultimately, the Grand Remonstrance represented the top-down elite dissent of the satrapan nobility rather than a genuine popular uprising. But it showcased the fissures within the Suren power structure that would deepen over time amid economic turmoil and resentment against foreign overreach.
