The revolution was a product of many
forces or factors, which had different but important magnitudes /
weights in causing the revolution. It was caused by both long term
factors which can be traced down to the 17th century and the immediate
factors that went up to the late 18th century. By 1789, the social,
political and economic conditions in France had outlived its usefulness
and the revolution was inevitable as peacock puts it; condition in
society must be very bad before men in large numbers under take its over
throw by violence. Although the revolution was caused by a number of
factors, it is worth observing that the contribution of these factors
varied in degree and magnitude. In other words no single factor however
great it appears to be can adequately explain the occurrence of the
revolution.
The causes of this most important event
in the history of Europe can generally be grouped under social,
political and economic problems that France faced by 1789. However this
grouping is only for the purpose of simplifying them so that students as
well as teachers find it easy to understand them. This is because it is
very hard to differentiate between something that is political but not
economic or social i.e. some factors can be considered political,
asocial as well as economic.
1 UNFAIR POLITICAL SYSTEM (THE NATURE OF THE ANCIENT REGIME)
Despotism
By
1789 France was ruled by the Bourbon Monarchy whose administration was
characterized by corruption, sectarianism, nepotism, human right abuses,
lack of democracy and above all despotism. Power was absolutely in the
hands of the king who was looked at as a demi-god. He was the law and
the law was himself and that is why Louis xvi boasted that; ''The thing
is legal because I wish it so." Even the king's ministers had unlimited
powers that could not be checked. For instance through the Lettress-de-
cachet (arrest warrant) the king and his minister could arrest and
imprison anybody at any time. This inflicted a lot of sufferings to the
French men most of whom were innocent who responded through the 1789
revolution.
NB. The ancient regime was the
hereditary Bourbon monarchy that existed in France prior to 1789. From
1610-1643 it was under Louis xiii, 1643-1715 under Louis xiv, 1715-1744
under the leadership of Louis XV and 1774-1792 led by Louis xvi. It
should be noted that despotism that was practiced by Louis xvi was
inherited from Louis xiii.
Lack of a functional parliament.
There
was no functional parliament upon which people's problems could be
articulated. The estate general had not sat for a period of 175 years
since 1614. The provincial and district assemblies were replaced by
royal assemblies known as intendants under the King, Therefore the
Frenchmen had nowhere to forward and settle the social evils, political
discontents, and the economic hardship since there was no functional
parliament. The only ugly way had to be a revolution.
It's
of paramount importance to stress that it was the calling of estates
general meeting on the 5th may 1789 and the hectic disagreement over the
seating arrangement that sparked off the revolution. Louis xvi insisted
on the undemocratic and archaic ancient system of voting by houses
against the third estate interest of voting by individual show of hands.
This forced the third estate representatives to turn themselves into
the national assembly and this was the beginning of the revolution.
Unfair Judicial system
The
French legal system made no small contribution to the 1789 revolution.
There were no uniform codes ' of law and one could be tried as much as
50 times for a single offence he or she committed. By 1789 there existed
up to different feudal codes of law in different parts of France, which
created judicial confusion and chaos within the judiciary. Besides,
there were two different modes of appeal i.e. the Roman law in the South
and the common law in the North, Worst of all there was no trial by
jury and in most cases the nobles were the accusers as well as judges
against the peasants and the middle class. Surely the peasants and the
middle class could not expect a fair trial against the nobles and the
clergy which conditioned them to revolt,
Lack of constitution
Apart
from the chaotic judicial system, there was no constitution that could
have guaranteed people s rights and provide equality of opportunity.
This also meant that there Were lib checks and balances to the kings'
excessive powers and unfair policies. The Frenchmen therefore resorted
to a revolution in a bid to have a constitution to safeguard their
rights and properties against the Kings' excessive powers.
The Grievances of the army
The
only "messiah" for the unpopular and despotic French monarchy was the
army. Unfortunately, the army had a lot
ofgrievancesandwasdissatisfiedwiththegovernment.Forinstance,they hated
the unfair promotions where high ranks were reserved for the nobles.
They were also irritated by the severe punishments for minor offences;
poor feeding and low pay amongst others. This explains why they
fraternized with the revolutionaries when they were ordered to suppress
them. Henceforth, the success of the French revolution counted so much
on the support of the
army.
Administrative structure
Political
unfairness in France was also characterized by unfair administrative
structure, which favored the nobles and clergy at the expense of the
peasants and the middle class. The nobles and clergy were dominant in
key positions in the army and public offices yet they were incompetent
and corrupt which created a lot of inefficiency. The middle class
because of their high levels of qualification and wealth felt it was an
insult to exclude them from top administrative positions. This made them
to mobilize the peasants and spearhead the revolution.
However,
the role of political unfairness in the French revolution should be
handled with care. This is because it was part and parcel of the Bourbon
monarchy and the French men had tolerated it for over 400years without
violently protesting against it. This therefore suggests that political
unfairness on its own could not have caused the revolution.
Nevertheless
one should take extra care because whereas such political unfairness
was fashionable in the 16th and 17th centuries, it was out of fashion in
the 18th century since no society is static. In this respect Louis xvi
should have reformed the French political system to suit the dynamic and
revolutionary 18^ century Frenchmen. All the same whatever the
arguments against political unfairness, it still remains a significant
long-term factor that contributed to the 1789 French revolution.
2.
THE ROLE OF PHILOSOPHERS, ENCYCLOPAEDISTS AND OTHER WRITERS
Philosophers are great thinkers who are highly educated about world
affairs. They are intellectual giants who had put their ideas into
writing. In their writings, they condemned the social, political and
economic situations in France and created more awareness of the
grievances/problems of France. This sharpened the minds of the Frenchmen
and created in them a revolutionary spirit. The four most outstanding
philosophers who made significant contributions to the French revolution
were; Voltaire, Montesquieu, J.J Rousseau and John Lock.
A) FRANCOIS-MARKAROVET-VOLTAIRE, 1694-1778
Voltaire
was a historian and a poet who attacked and exposed the traditions,
beliefs and abuses of the ancient regime i.e. its shortcomings. For 25
years he flooded France with plays, poems, philosophical tales,
histories, essays, drama, pamphlets and won for himself the reputation
of "the intellectual ruler of his age". He was most particularly against
the Catholic Church, its corrupt clergy and nobles, heavy taxation, the
tithe and the system of Lettres-de-cachet. He denounced religious
intolerance and advocated for freedom of worship. He projected the
British-political system with religious freedom as the best for
France.
In the "Letters on the English "he wrote; An Englishman goes to heaven
by the way he pleases. There are no arbitrary taxes, a noble or priest
is not exempted from paying tax. In other words Voltaire was preaching
for religious freedom, fair taxation and abolition, of social class
privileges. All these incited the peasants and the middle class to
revolt by 1789.
Although Voltaire attacked the
church and critically undermined the throne on which it rested
(government), he was neither a democrat nor a republican. He only wanted
reforms within the monarchy and not its destruction. This is why he
remarked that, I would rather be ruled by one Lion than by a hundred
rats. This was because a violent change would destroy his wealth.
.
Apart from being a strong believer in the Bourbon monarchy, Voltaire
was a very faithful religious believer. He was not an atheist; his views
were that; If God did not exist, it would be necessary to create him.
He was against the Catholic Church because of its interference on state
affairs.
B) BARONDE-MONTESQUIEV, 1689-1755
Montesquieu
was a great traveler, and while in Britain, he had studied the British
political system, which he advocated for in France. In his book “The
spirit of the laws, 1748'' he criticized the Devine rights of Kings and
compared despotism to cutting down a tree in order to get its fruits. He
praised the British political system of equality as the best for
France. To limit absolutism of the ancient regime, he advocated for a
constitutional monarchy with an independent judiciary, executive and
legislature. Each of these was to check the powers of the other and this
would bring justice and liberty to the people.
Montesquieu's
political philosophy became more pronounced in France after the
successful American war of independence of 1776-1783. From 1783, America
adopted an elected government with a legislative assembly, an
executive, a constitution and an independent judiciary. The success of
Montesquieu's ideas in America provoked the Frenchmen to revolt against
the Bourbon monarchy. That is why they demanded for the reduction of the
King's despotic powers and equal political representation in the
estates-general meeting (according to Montesquieu's ideas) on the eve of
the revolution in the cashiers (list of grievances). In short,
Montesquieu contributed revolutionary ideas that made the Frenchmen more
revolutionary than
ever before.
C ) JEAN JACQUESROUSSEA U, 1712-1778
J.J
Rousseau was the most democratic philosopher wp.ose ideas were most
prominent to the French revolution of1789-1799. His book, "The social
contract became the bible of die hard revolutionaries and, Robespierre
was its high priest. In this book, he explained that a government is a
contract between the ruler and the ruled and that the ruled has the
right to rev. At if the rulers fail to protect, promote and defend their
social, political and economic rights as was the case with the Bourbon
monarchy.
Rousseau's theory of the "general will of
the people" called for a democratically elected government of the
people, by the people and for the people. By the people, he meant the
majority French peasants and the middle class who were oppressed. He
therefore instilled in them, the spirit of questioning and doubting the
worthiness of the nobles, clergy and above all the bourbon monarchy. In
short, Rousseau contributed to the revolution by inciting the majority
French peasants and middle class against the minority clergy and nobles
Rousseau's
most memorable and revered statement was that man is born free but
everywhere in chains. He continues that; The surroundings of the society
destroys the natural simplicity of man, tainted his virtues and were
responsible for his sufferings and sins. In this way, he shows
how the Bourbon monarchy
was responsible for problems in France through political unfairness,
economic hardships and social discrimination. All in all, Rousseau
contributed revolutionary ideas of equality, liberty, and democracy
which made the French revolution inevitable.
NB.
Rousseau's views were that in the initial stages man was not barbaric
but was a liberal wild animal. He called people to end artificial social
structure that had enslaved and restricted man's freedom. He says man
should adopt the primitive simplicity when he was ruled by natural laws,
when he was ignorant and innocent, as nature had made him.
Paradoxically,
Rousseau was not even in favor of constitutional monarchy of the
British type. He wrote that the British were mistaken to consider
themselves to be free. He says they were free only during elections,
after elections they were forgotten by their elected representatives.
However, Rousseau like his counterparts believed that it was better to
reform the monarchy than to abolish it. Nevertheless, his views were
very instrumental during the course of the revolution.
D) JOHNLOCK (1632-1704)
John Lock was one of the classical philosophers whose ideas contributed to the outbreak of the French
revolution
of 1789. He observes that people freely enter into a social contract to
create a government in order to protect their freedom, properties and
lives. He argues that if a government fails to promote and protect the
natural rights and security of it’s' citizens, then it's in a state of
rebellion against its own people and violated the terms of the social
contract. The people in such a situation have the right to rebel against
it and establish a new one. He also castigated absolute monarchy as an
illegitimate form of government. He argues that the powers of a
government come from the people rather than God, which helped to
undermine divine rights of King Louis Xvi. Consequently, Lock advocated
for a democratic government where the parliament, executive and
judiciary have powers that are not absolute but are given
in
trust by the people. People are free to withdraw such powers in case a
government fails to effectively perform responsibilities entrusted to
it. All these were viable options for the French peasants and middle
class to revolt because of nonfunctional parliament, judicial and
administrative in justice that favored the nobles and the clergy.
The
Encyclopaedists in their encyclopedia (book of knowledge about
politics, religion, history and economics) exposed the social, political
and economic evils of the ancient regime that needed reforms. Their
editor was Denis Diderot who compiled the writings of other writers in
one big volume (encyclopedia).The encyclopedia was widely circulated and
read in France and the whole Europe. It gave more enlightenment and
inspiration to the French peasants and the middle class that dragged
them to revolt.
The economists like Adam Smith,
Diderot, D'Alambert, etc denounced the unfair taxation system,
corruption, embezzlement of public funds and royal extravagancy. They
also called for universal education and an end to state injustice. Their
spokesmen were Quesney and Turgot. The economic reforms that were
advocated by the physiocrats were later adapted by Necker, Turgot and
Brienne. However, these were ignored and rejected by Louis xvi with his
poor advisors, which accelerated France into the revolution of 1789.
Generally,
philosophers, encyclopaedists and other writers awakened the oppressed
Frenchmen to demand for a change of government. They were also the
authors of the French revolutionary ideas of equality, liberty,
fraternity and democracy. These ideas created a class of elites like
Mira beau, Robespierre and Napoleon I who became revolutionary leaders.
Nevertheless the significance of philosophers should be treated with reservations due to the following considerations:
They
had criticized the French political system since the reign of King
Louis xv without causing any revolution. If their ideas counted so much
,then the revolution would have started during the reign of Louis XV.
By
1789, the re-known philosophers were all dead. If their writings were
very significant, then the revolution would have started during their
lifetime and they would have been the leaders of the revolution.
Even
if what survived their death (writings) implied a revolution, the
majorities of the Frenchmen were illiterate and could not understand
their works. Even the few hterates could not properly grasp the abstract
and logical writings of the philosophers which were in big
vocabularies, poems and parables amongst others.
(iv)
None of the philosophers wanted a violent revolution of the French type
since it would destroy their wealth. They simply wanted a peaceful
reform of the monarchy. This could mean that the contributions of the
political philosophers were accidental since they never wanted a violent
revolution.
(v) The writings of the philosophers
were widely circulated and read throughout Europe. The fact that it
caused a revolution only in France shows that France had specific
problems that called for a revolution. Indeed the evils within France
were so conspicuous (open) that even if the philosophers had not exposed
them, a revolution would still have taken place in France.
In
summary, it was mostly the role of other factors other than the
influence of the philosophers that contributed to the great French
revolution. It was the social, political and economic evils that the
philosophers criticized, otherwise without these problems they would
have had nothing to criticize and write about. Nevertheless, the
critical influence of the philosophers magnified such problems to a
revolutionary level. In short, the role of philosophers complemented
other factors in causing the French revolution of 1789.
Attachments
No attachments
No comments:
Post a Comment