Friday, June 18, 2010
As I was thinking of what to write for this entry, I couldn't help but keep coming back to the fact despite the fervor and bloodshed against the nobility during the French Revolution, Napoleon came to power a mere 10 years after 1789, an emperor created by the French people. There are plenty of reasons as to why this might be: the French were still unopposed to the idea of a monarchy, Napoleon was just that cool, etc. I would have to say, however, that the reason that sticks out the most to me is the utter failure to truly implement the notion that sovereignty rests with the people and other Enlightenment ideals. In fact, I would say that under Napoleon's reign the average French male enjoyed a higher level of liberty through legal protection than had been previously seen. To oversimplify, the French revolution was brought about by the unique timing of Enlightenment ideals being injected into a society that was facing famine, a poor economy and an inept and indifferent king. The idea that sovereignty rests with the people spread throughout the country as they revolted, and justified the people's actions. But what happened to that idea when The Committee for Public Safety came into power? There very people that had led the revolution against noble tyranny turned to fanaticism, and through their unnecessary bloodshed became tyrants themselves. One might also draw comparisons between the Committee and communist governments that came years after: "everyone is equal--at least when the people in power decide that everybody has started thinking the same a decide to relinquish power." The Committee enacted extremely harsh and nationalistic laws, censorship laws, and were in many ways much more suspicious of sedition than the previous monarchy, and as a result became the authoritarian government they had sought to destroy, all in the name of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité." In my opinion the only progress that was made was to create a blank slate, allowing the French to develop a new government in future years. I suppose the lesson to all of this is that change is only a good thing if it's taking the country in the right direction, and that the people of any country must be ever vigilant and suspicious, remembering that sovereignty rest within themselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think Napoleon's rise to power was also coupled with his great popularity in the military. No leader could truly maintain power unless he has the military under control, so this would have been a crucial asset. I think you may be correct in your thoughts about the French people not fully having a hold on their sovereignty. For them to have fought a revolution, and then submitted to an Emperor a mere decade later suggests an immaturity in the ideas of true freedoms.
ReplyDeleteI think you're very much correct in your assessment. I don't think the French were quite ready for the ideas to become reality. In America, for instance, before our Revolution, we already had a pretty good idea of how we were going to try and run things. For the French, they new how to launch a coup, but they didn't quite know what to do after they had that power. The result? Going back to a system of government with which they were familiar. I think it was very much a matter of insecurity, and Napoleon brought them the security they sought.
ReplyDeleteYour blog raises an interesting point regarding the belief (or lack thereof) in popular sovereignty in France. However, I might argue that the problem came not from the failure of the French to adhere to notions of popular sovereignty but from the fact that the experiments in popular sovereignty led to the most radical phase of the Revolution, to the Terror and the re-making of French life. The French tried popular sovereignty and many feared where it had taken them. Napoleon might be viewed as a vote for order and stability, for limits to a now suspect idea of popular sovereignty.
ReplyDelete