The spirit which gave rise to the movement of '89 was a spirit of negation; that, of itself, proves that the order of things which was substituted for the old system was not methodical or well-considered; that, born of anger and hatred, it could not have the effect of a science based on observation and study; that its foundations, in a word, were not derived from a profound knowledge of the laws of Nature and society.Thus the people found that the republic, among the so-called new institutions, was acting on the very principles against which they had fought, and was swayed by all the prejudices which they had intended to destroy.We congratulate ourselves, with inconsiderate enthusiasm, on the glorious French Revolution, the regeneration of 1789, the great changes that have been effected, and the reversion of institutions: a delusion, a delusion!
When our ideas on any subject, material, intellectual, or social, undergo a thorough change in consequence of new observations, Icall that movement of the mind REVOLUTION.If the ideas are simply extended or modified, there is only PROGRESS.Thus the system of Ptolemy was a step in astronomical progress, that of Copernicus was a revolution.So, in 1789, there was struggle and progress; revolution there was none.An examination of the reforms which were attempted proves this.
The nation, so long a victim of monarchical selfishness, thought to deliver itself for ever by declaring that it alone was sovereign.But what was monarchy? The sovereignty of one man.What is democracy? The sovereignty of the nation, or, rather, of the national majority.But it is, in both cases, the sovereignty of man instead of the sovereignty of the law, the sovereignty of the will instead of the sovereignty of the reason;in one word, the passions instead of justice.Undoubtedly, when a nation passes from the monarchical to the democratic state, there is progress, because in multiplying the sovereigns we increase the opportunities of the reason to substitute itself for the will; but in reality there is no revolution in the government, since the principle remains the same.Now, we have the proof to-day that, with the most perfect democracy, we cannot be free.
See De Tocqueville, "Democracy in the United States;" and Michel Chevalier, "Letters on North America." Plutarch tells us, "Life of Pericles," that in Athens honest people were obliged to conceal themselves while studying, fearing they would be regarded as aspirants for office.
Nor is that all.The nation-king cannot exercise its sovereignty itself; it is obliged to delegate it to agents: this is constantly reiterated by those who seek to win its favor.Be these agents five, ten, one hundred, or a thousand, of what consequence is the number; and what matters the name? It is always the government of man, the rule of will and caprice.Iask what this pretended revolution has revolutionized?
We know, too, how this sovereignty was exercised; first by the Convention, then by the Directory, afterwards confiscated by the Consul.As for the Emperor, the strong man so much adored and mourned by the nation, he never wanted to be dependent on it;but, as if intending to set its sovereignty at defiance, he dared to demand its suffrage: that is, its abdication, the abdication of this inalienable sovereignty; and he obtained it.
But what is sovereignty? It is, they say, the POWER TO MAKELAW.Another absurdity, a relic of despotism.The nation had long seen kings issuing their commands in this form: FORSUCH IS OUR PLEASURE; it wished to taste in its turn the pleasure of making laws.For fifty years it has brought them forth by myriads; always, be it understood, through the agency of representatives.The play is far from ended.
"Sovereignty," according to Toullier, "is human omnipotence."A materialistic definition: if sovereignty is any thing, it is a RIGHT not a FORCE or a faculty.And what is human omnipotence?
The definition of sovereignty was derived from the definition of the law.The law, they said, is THE EXPRESSION OF THE WILL OFTHE SOVEREIGN: then, under a monarchy, the law is the expression of the will of the king; in a republic, the law is the expression of the will of the people.Aside from the difference in the number of wills, the two systems are exactly identical: both share the same error, namely, that the law is the expression of a will; it ought to be the expression of a fact.Moreover they followed good leaders: they took the citizen of Geneva for their prophet, and the contrat social for their Koran.
Bias and prejudice are apparent in all the phrases of the new legislators.The nation had suffered from a multitude of exclusions and privileges; its representatives issued the following declaration: ALL MEN ARE EQUAL BY NATURE AND BEFORETHE LAW; an ambiguous and redundant declaration.MEN ARE EQUALBY NATURE: does that mean that they are equal in size, beauty, talents, and virtue? No; they meant, then, political and civil equality.Then it would have been sufficient to have said: ALLMEN ARE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW.
But what is equality before the law? Neither the constitution of 1790, nor that of '93, nor the granted charter, nor the accepted charter, have defined it accurately.All imply an inequality in fortune and station incompatible with even a shadow of equality in rights.In this respect it may be said that all our constitutions have been faithful expressions of the popular will:
I am going, to prove it.
