How far did the establishment of the empire of Napoleon 1 mark the end of revolution in FRANCE? The bourgeoisie made a grand entrance onto the French political scene by masterminding that famous revolution which started in 1789. With their rallying call for liberty, equality and fraternity, France and indeed Europe appeared to be on the threshold of a new political and social dispensation where all people could live together in a climate of equality, dignity and mutual respect. It would also be possible for anyone to rise to any position solely on merit regardless of circumstances of birth or any other form of privilege. For all its high-sounding and well-meaning ideals, the revolutionary episode seemed to succeed only in bringing out all that was negative about the French and Europeans in general especially as it unleashed the twin evils of civil and international conflict. The ensuring chaos set the stage for the advent of the empire of Napoleon 1. Ruling with an iron fist in France and waging war in Europe, Napoleon’s reign has attracted mixed reviews from historians and critics over the centuries. He has been praised for reforms that left a lasting positive imprint on the socio-political landscape of France and Europe. Concepts such as the ‘careers open to talent’ and the Code Napoleon are prime examples of such reforms. Some have however poured cold water over his achievements claiming instead that the advent of his empire spelt the death sentence for the revolution and all the good it stood for. While there maybe some truth in those assertions, it would be a gross exaggeration to claim that he completely destroyed the revolution. This essay seeks to show that Napoleon 1 did not end the revolution however much his reign was negative. It is necessary to clarify what the revolution really was before Napoleon is brought to judgement. What should we consider as the true meaning of the French Revolution-do we define it in terms of its ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity? Or do we also consider the actual events that transpired from 1789 onwards? If we decide to judge Napoleon from the standpoint of the ideals then those who argue that his advent signalled an end to the revolution have a strong case. The very fact of establishing an empire effectively denied other people the opportunity to rise to the highest political position in the land. The revolution had destroyed the monarchical or dynastic political system and by restoring it Napoleon had re-wound the clock back to the pre-revolutionary era. It is therefore impossible to talk of the equality of opportunities when Napoleon had restored a nepotistic and hereditary system that benefited only his family line and not necessarily the man best qualified as envisaged in the revolution’s ideal of equality of opportunity. Napoleon ultimately showed neither respect for the people’s revolutionary right to choose their rulers nor his self-proclaimed concept of ‘careers open to talent’. Furthermore it is really impossible to talk of his respect for the revolutionary principle of liberty when Napoleon created an empire complete with all the apparatus for the repression and suppression of all dissent. He revived the hated ministry of police which he had earlier abolished in 1802. By 1810 he had virtually restored the infamous lettres de catchet complete with its provisions for arbitrary arrest and imprisonment without trial. Spies and other state agents flourished once more. Censorship of the press and other correspondence destroyed the right to free expression. In view of such policies, it is not easy even for Napoleon’s most ardent supporters to acquit him of the charge of destroying individual liberties and therefore the revolution itself. Napoleon also ignored the principle of fraternity. All men were brothers according to the revolutionary gospel. The revolutionaries had even come up with a declaration of fraternity by which they promised to assist all those Europeans intending to free themselves from monarchical absolutism. This concept was an illusion that could not be possible in Napoleon’s Europe where wars of conquest and subjugation were the order of the day. When Napoleon’s Grand Army defeated the Austrians in Belgium and Italy, French rule simply substituted that of the Austrians. There was obviously no fraternising between the French master and his new subjects and that was a cold reality no amount of propaganda could ever change. Even Napoleon’s ‘continental system’ which prohibited commerce between Britain and continental Europe showed no fraternal respect for fellow Europeans. It was the work of a bully driven by the selfish objective of economically crippling Britain irrespective and regardless of the consequent suffering of all Europe. Napoleon violated so many aspects of the revolutionary principle of equality but to say that he ended the revolution is to ignore the many aspects of his rule that actually furthered the revolutionary cause. His introduction of a codified and uniform system of law for France (Code Napoleon) actually furthered the revolutionary business started by his revolutionary predecessors. Before there can be any talk of equality before the law, the law must first of all be clearly articulated, laid down and uniformly applied. This important task only talked about by Napoleon’s predecessors was only carried out at his instigation. The Code gave France a recognisable body of written law. Before then, there had only been a confused and uncertain hotchpotch of royal edicts, feudal customs and church laws which were uncertain, unevenly applied and unwritten. It goes without saying that where laws are not certain, not codified and uniformly applied there cannot be equal treatment and any equality before the law. By including in his legal code provisions recognising or confirming the gains made by the peasants and bourgeoisie from 1789 onwards, Napoleon demonstrated a desire to consolidate rather than end the revolution. Reference is being made here to Napoleon’s recognition of the revolutionary confiscation of the nobles’ and church lands. Instead of returning them to their former owners, he gave legal recognition to their sale to the peasants and other classes. He even went further than the so-called real revolutionaries by reconciling the church to that accomplished revolutionary fact through the Concordat. Even if we concede that the revolution should be defined merely in terms of the 1789 ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity, it would only be fair to examine the conduct of those revolutionaries who preceded him before we proceed to judge Napoleon I. So many atrocities were committed in the 1790s in the name of the revolution especially during the ‘Reign of Terror’ of Robespierre and company. As many as forty thousand people were executed or died and in excess of five hundred were summarily detained during that period. Such atrocities did much more than anything Napoleon could have to destroy liberty and equality yet there has not been a single word written or spoken questioning the revolutionary credentials of the perpetrators. Now if that brutal period is universally acknowledged to be part of the revolutionary epoch and if people like Robespierre are unquestionably accepted as revolutionaries, it boggles the mind that there are some who regard Napoleon as having ended the revolution. He undoubtedly violated the principle of liberty but there is equally no doubt his predecessors had done likewise. Napoleon violated the principle of fraternity but so did his predecessors. It is worth remembering that the wars and subjugation of other European states commenced before Napoleon’s rule and were in fact started by the so-called revolutionaries. Thus in 1792 when France went to war with Austria, Prussia, Holland and later England there was no fraternity between the French and fellow Europeans. Napoleon violated that which had been violated and because of that there should not be any line of demarcation between the revolution and his reign. If the revolution is to be defined in terms of ideals then he did not end it-either it had already been ended or it had never materialised in the first place. Principles aside, the case against Napoleon still does not hold as such a claim presupposes the existence of a clearly defined revolutionary agenda which was then destroyed by Napoleon. There was no one group of revolutionaries and no single coherent sequential revolutionary agenda which all revolutionaries adhered to or had to adhere to. The practical politics of the revolution were really a matter of trial and error made up as France went along. Revolutionary personalities and factions came and went each pursuing its own policies that it supposed to be revolutionary and each accusing others of being counter-revolutionary. Thus Robespierre and fellow Jacobins instituted their brand of policies that were extremely brutal and destroyed individual liberties because the considered them necessary. If Napoleon behaved differently from the Jacobins or any other of his predecessors, that does not necessarily make him counter-revolutionary. The only revolutionary common denominator was the basic consideration that French political and social institutions needed a drastic overhaul. There never was and never could be any consensus on the practical implementation of that overhaul and as such nobody could say that the Jacobin way or the Girondist way was the revolutionary way and Napoleon’s way was an anathema. Furthermore liberty, equality and fraternity could never be granted absolutely and unconditionally. Napoleon I obviously had his own limits dictated by practical considerations and those were not necessarily the same as those of his predecessors. That some historians and critics have found his ways to be in bad taste does not make him any less revolutionary. As with all human beings, Napoleon I had his shortcomings but his rule actually ushered in a new era in which the revolution was not only consolidated but more importantly given its practical form and meaning. Any critic should never lose sight of the fact that it was Napoleon who proclaimed the concept of ‘careers open to talent’. He went on to give this a living definition by instituting educational and the legal reforms already discussed in this essay. Those were reforms his predecessors had only talked about but spent themselves in warding off real and imagined enemies of the revolution. Their greatest contribution to the revolution was in sweeping away the Ancien Regime with its concept of ‘the divine right of kings’ and system of privileges for the clergy and nobility. But that is where their relevance ended and that is the point at which the baton in the revolutionary relay had to be handed to Napoleon I. In the first place there was nothing amiss with the establishment of his empire. It was all part of the on-going revolutionary drama as it was only established with the consent of the majority of Frenchmen who unanimously and unreservedly endorsed it in a plebiscite. It was a dynastic dictatorship but it was established in the exercise of democratic rights which is what the revolution was all about. Having said all this it remains to restate that Napoleon I was no disciple of liberty, equality and fraternity. Nobody ever was and if all are to be judged on that score then there were neither revolutionaries nor a revolution in France. As an individual, Napoleon did so much to consolidate the revolution and give it practical form and meaning. For that reason his advent did not destroy it
Posted on: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 13:51:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015