Kitabı oku: «History of Human Society», sayfa 28
The Failure of Government. – It soon became evident to all that a failure of the government from a practical standpoint was certain. The burdens of unequal taxation could no longer be borne; the treasury was empty; there was no means of raising revenue to support the government as it was run; there was no one who could manage the finances of the nation; the administration of justice had fallen into disrepute; even if there had been an earnest desire to help the various classes of people in distress, there were no opportunities to do so. Louis XVI, in his weakness, called the States-General for counsel and advice. It was the first time the people had been called in council for more than 200 years; monarchy had said it could run the government without the people, and now, on the verge of destruction, called upon the people to save it from the wreck. The well-intended king invoked a storm; his predecessors had sown the wind, he reaped the whirlwind.
France on the Eve of the Revolution. – The causes of the revolution were dependent, in part, upon the peculiarity of the character of the French people, for in no other way can the sudden outburst or the course of the revolution be accounted for. Yet a glimpse at the condition of France before the storm burst will cause one to wonder, not that it came, but that it was so long delayed.
A careful examination of the facts removes all mystery respecting the greatest political phenomenon of all history, and makes of it an essential outcome of previous conditions. The French people were grossly ignorant of government. The long period of misrule had distorted every form of legitimate government. One school of political philosophers gave their attention to pointing out the evils of the system; another to presenting bright pictures of ideal systems of government which had never been put in practice. The people found no difficulty in realizing the abuses of government, for they were intense sufferers from them, and, having no expression in the management of affairs, they readily adopted ideal theories for the improvement of social conditions. Moreover, there was no national unity, no coherence of classes such as in former days brought strength to the government. Monarchy was divided against itself; the lay nobility had no loyalty, but were disintegrated by internal feuds; the people were divided into opposing classes; the clergy were rent asunder.
Monarchy, though harsh, arbitrary, and unjust, did not have sufficient coercive force to give a strong rule. The church had lost its moral influence – indeed, morality was lacking within its organization. It could persecute heretics and burn books which it declared to be obnoxious to its doctrines, but it could not work a moral reform, much less stem the tide that was carrying away its ancient prerogatives. The nobility had no power in the government, and the dissension between the crown, the nobility, and the church was continuous and destructive of all authority. Continuous and disreputable quarrels, profligacy, extravagance, and idleness characterized each group.
Worst of all was the condition of the peasantry. The commons of France, numbering twenty-five millions of people, had, let it be said in their favor, no part in the iniquitous and oppressive government. They were never given a thought by the rulers except as a means of revenue. There had grown up another, a middle class, especially in towns, who had grown wealthy by honest toil, and were living in ease and luxury, possessed of some degree of culture. They disliked the nobles, on the one hand, and the peasants, on the other; hated and opposed the nobility and ignored the common people. This class did not represent the sterling middle class of England or of modern life, but were the product of feudalism.
The condition of the rural peasantry is almost beyond description. Suffering from rack-rents, excessive taxation, and the abuses of the nobility, they presented a squalor and wretchedness worse than that of the lowest vassals of the feudal regime. In the large cities collected the dangerous classes who hated the rich. Ignorant, superstitious, half-starved, they were ready at a moment's notice to attack the wealthy and to destroy property.
The economic and financial conditions of the nation were deplorable, for the yield of wealth decreased under the poorly organized state. The laborers received such wages as left them at the verge of starvation and prepared them for open revolution. The revenues reserved for the support of the government were insufficient for the common needs, and an empty treasury was the result. The extravagance of king, court, and nobility had led to excessive expenditures and gross waste. There were no able ministers to manage the affairs of the realm on an economic basis. Add to these evils lack of faith, raillery at decency and virtue, and the poisonous effects of a weak and irresponsible philosophy, and there are represented sufficient evils to make a revolution whenever there is sufficient vigor to start it.
The Revolution. – The revolution comes with all of its horrors. The church is humbled and crushed, the government razed to the ground, monarchy is beheaded, and the flower of nobility cut off. The wild mob at first seeks only to destroy; later it seeks to build a new structure on the ruins. The weak monarch, attempting to stem the tide, is swept away by its force. He summons the States-General, and the commons declare themselves the national assembly. Stupendous events follow in rapid succession – the revolt in Paris, the insubordination of the army, the commune of Paris, and the storming of the Bastile. The legislative assembly brings about the constitutional assembly, and laws are enacted for the relief of the people.
Intoxicated with increasing liberty, the populace goes mad, and the legislators pass weak and harmful laws. The law-making and constitutional bodies cannot make laws fast enough to regulate the affairs of the state. Lawlessness and violence increase until the "reign of terror" appears with all its indescribable horrors. The rest is plain. Having levelled all government to the ground, having destroyed all authority, having shown themselves incapable of self-government, the French people are ready for Napoleon. Under his command and pretense they march forth to liberate humanity from oppression in other nations, but in reality to a world conquest.
Results of the Revolution. – The French Revolution was by far the most stupendous event of modern history. It settled forever in the Western world the relation of man to government. It taught that absolutism of any class, if unchecked, must lead sooner or later to the destruction of all authority. It taught that men, to be capable of self-government, must be educated in its principles through a long period, yet proclaimed to the Western world the freedom of man, and asserted his right to participate in government. While France temporarily failed to bring about this participation, it awoke the cry for independence, equality, and fraternity around the world.
The results of the revolution became the common property of all nations, and a universal sentiment arising from it pervaded every country, shaping its destiny. The severe blow given to absolutism and exclusive privilege in church and state settled forever the theory of the divine right of kings and prelates to govern. The revolution asserted that the precedent in religious and political affairs must yield to the necessities of the people; that there is no fixed principle in government except the right of man to govern himself.
The establishment of the theory of the natural right of man to participate in government had great influence on succeeding legislation and modified the policy of surrounding nations. The social-contract theory was little understood and gave an incorrect notion of the nature of government. In its historical creation, government was a growth, continually suiting itself to the changing needs of a people. Its practice rested upon convenience and precedent, but the real test for participation in government was capability. But the French Revolution startled the monarchs of Europe with the assumption of the natural right of people to self-government. Possibly it is incorrect when carried to extremes, for the doctrine of natural right must be merged into the practice of social rights, duties, and privileges. But it was a check on despotism.
The revolution had an influence on economic life also. It was only a step from freedom of intellectual opinion to freedom of religious belief, and only a step from religious freedom to political liberty. Carried to its legitimate outcome, the growing sentiment of freedom asserted industrial liberty and economic equality. Its influence in the emancipation of labor was far-reaching. Many of the theories advanced in the French Revolution were impracticable; sentiments engendered were untrue, which in the long run would lead to injustice. Many of its promises remain unfulfilled, yet its lessons are still before us, its influence for good or evil continues unabated.
SUBJECTS FOR FURTHER STUDY
1. The progress in constitutional government was made in England during the Commonwealth.
2. Changes in the social and economic condition of England from 1603 to 1760.
3. When did the Industrial Revolution begin? What were its causes? What its results?
4. The rise of British commerce.
5. Effect of commerce on English economic and social life.
6. Of what use to England were her American colonies?
7. The effect of the American Revolution on the French Revolution.
8. The effect of the French Revolution on American liberty.
PART V
MODERN PROGRESS
CHAPTER XXVI
PROGRESS OF POLITICAL LIBERTY
Political Liberty in the Eighteenth Century. – Looking backward from the standpoint of the close of the eighteenth century and following the chain of events in the previous century, the real achievement in social order is highly disappointing. The French Revolution, which had levelled the monarchy, the church, and the nobility, and brought the proletariat in power for a brief season and lifted the hopes of the people toward a government of equality, was hurrying on from the directorate to the consulate to the empire, and finally returning to the old monarchy somewhat worn and dilapidated, indeed, but sufficient in power to smother the hopes of the people for the time being. Numerous French writers, advocating anarchy, communism, and socialism, set up ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity which were not to be realized as the immediate result of the revolution. Babeuf, Saint-Simon, Cabet, and Louis Blanc set forth new ideals of government, which were diametrically opposed to the practices of the French government in preceding centuries. Though some of their ideals were lofty, the writers were critical and destructive rather than constructive.
England, after the coming of William and Mary and the passing of the Bill of Rights in 1689, witnessed very little progress in political rights and liberty until the reform measures of the nineteenth century. On the continent, Prussia had risen to a tremendous power as a military state and developed an autocratic government with some pretenses to political liberty. But the dominant force of Prussia working on the basis of the ancient feudalism was finally to crush out the liberties of the German people and establish autocratic government. The Holy Roman Empire, which had continued so long under the union of Austria and Italy, backed by the papacy, had reached its height of arbitrary power, and was destroyed by the Napoleonic wars. In the whole period there were political struggles and intrigues within the various states, and political struggles and intrigues and wars between the nations. It was a period of the expression of national selfishness which sought enlarged territory and the control of commerce and trade. Taken as a whole, there is little that is inspiring in the movement of nations in this period. Indeed, it is highly disappointing when we consider the materials at their hand for political advancement.
The political game at home played by cliques and factions and politicians struggling for power frequently led to disgraces abroad, such as the war against the American colonies and the extension of power and domination in India. There is scarcely a war, if any, in this whole period that should not have been settled without difficulty, provided nations were honest with each other and could exercise, if not reason, common sense. The early great movements, such as the revival of learning and progress centring in Italy and extending to other nations, the religious revolution which brought freedom of belief, the revolution of England and the Commonwealth, the French Revolution with its projections of new ideals of liberty on the horizon of political life, promised better things. Also, during this period the development of literature and the arts and sciences should have been an enlightened aid to political liberty.
Nevertheless, the higher ideals of life and liberty which were set forth during these lucid intervals of the warring nations of the world were never lost. The seeds of liberty, once having been sown, were to spring up in future years and develop through a normal growth.
The Progress of Popular Government Found Outside of the Great Nations. – The rise of democracy in Switzerland and the Netherlands and its development in America, although moving indirectly and by reaction, had a lasting influence on the powerful nations like Germany, England, France, and Austria. In these smaller countries the warfare against tyranny, despotism, and ignorance was waged with success. Great gain was made in the overthrow of the accumulated power of traditional usage and the political monopoly of groups of people who had seized and held the power. Through trial and error, success and failure, these people, not noted for their brilliant warfare but for their love of peace, succeeded in establishing within their boundaries a clear definition of human rights and recognizing the right of the people to have a better government.
Reform Measures in England. – The famous Bill of Rights of 1689 in England has always been intact in theory. It laid the foundation for popular government in which privileges and rights of the people were guaranteed. It may have been a good expedient to have declared that no papist should sit upon the throne of England, thus declaring for Protestantism, but it was far from an expression of religious toleration. The prestige of the House of Lords, an old and well-established aristocratic body, built upon ancient privilege and the power of the monarchy which too frequently acknowledged constitutional rights and then proceeded to trample upon them, made the progress in popular government very slow.
One great gain had been made when the nation agreed to fight its political battles in Parliament and at elections. The freedom of the press and the freedom of speech gradually became established facts. Among the more noted acts for the benefit of popular government was the Reform Bill of 1832, which enlarged the elective franchise. This was bitterly opposed by the Lords, but the persistency of the Commons won the day and the king signed the bill. Again in 1867 the second Reform Bill enlarged the franchise, and more modern acts of Parliament have given greater liberties to the English people.
England opposed independent local government of Scotland and Ireland and of her colonies. Ireland had been oppressed by the malady of English landlordism, which had always been a bone of contention in the way of any amicable adjustment of the relations between England and Ireland. Throughout the whole century had waged this struggle. England at times had sought through a series of acts to relieve the country, but the conservative element in Parliament had usually thwarted any rational system like that proposed by Mr. Gladstone. On the other hand, the Irish people themselves desired absolute freedom and independence and were restive under any form of restraint.
Nothing short of entire independence from the English nation or the establishment of home rule on some practical basis could insure peace and contentment in Ireland. Nor in the past could one be assured at any time that Ireland would have been contented for any length of time had she been given or acquired what she asked for. Being forced to support a large population on an infertile soil where landlordism dominated was a cause of a continual source of discontent, and the lack of practice of the Irish people in the art of local government always gave rise to doubts in the minds of her friends as to whether she could succeed as an independent nation or not. But the final triumph of Ireland in establishing a free state with the nominal control of the British Empire shows that Ireland has power to govern herself under fair treatment.
What a great gain it would have been if many years ago England had yielded to the desire of Ireland for an independent constitutional government similar to that of Canada! Tremendous changes have taken place in recent years in the liberalizing movement in England. The state church still exists, but religious toleration is complete. Women have been allowed the right to vote and are taking deep interest in political affairs, three women already having seats in Parliament. The labor movement, which has always been strong and independent in England, by the exercise of its right at the polls finally gained control of the government and, for the first time in the history of England, a leading labor-union man and a socialist became premier of England.
The Final Triumph of the French Republic. – On account of ignorance of the true theories of government, as well as on account of lack of practical exercise in administration, for several decades the government which the French people established after the destruction of the monarchy of Louis XVI failed. The democracy of the French Revolution was iconoclastic, not creative. It could tear down, but could not rebuild. There were required an increased intelligence and the slow process of thought, a meditation upon the principles for which the people had fought and bled, and an enlarged view of the principles of government, before a republic could be established in France. Napoleon, catching the spirit of the times, gratified his ambition by obtaining the mastery of national affairs and leading the French people against foreign nations under the pretext of overthrowing despotism in Europe. In so doing he established absolutism once more in France. He became the imperial monarch of the old type, with the exceptions that intelligence took the place of bigotry and the welfare of the people took the place of the laudation of kings. But in attempting to become the dictator of all Europe, he caused other nations to combine against him, and finally he closed his great career with a Waterloo.
The monarchy, on its restoration, became constitutional; the government was composed of two chambers – the peers, nominated by the king, and the lower house, elected by the people. A system of responsible ministers was established, and of judges, who were not removable. Much had been gained in religious and civil liberty and the freedom of the press. But monarchy began to grow again, urged by the middle class of France, until in July, 1830, another revolution broke out on account of election troubles. The charter was violated in the prohibition of the publication of newspapers and pamphlets, and the elective system arbitrarily changed so as to restrict the suffrage to the landowners. The reaction from this was to gain something more for democratic government. In the meantime there had been a growth of socialism, the direct product of the revolution.
The king finally abdicated in favor of his grandson, and then a provisional government was established, and finally a republic, the second republic of France. Louis Napoleon, who became president of the republic under the constitution, gradually absorbed all powers to himself and proclaimed himself emperor. After the close of the Franco-German War, in 1871, France became a republic for the third time. A constitution was formed, under which the legislative power was exercised by two chambers – the Chamber of Deputies, elected by direct vote and manhood suffrage for four years, and the Senate, consisting of 300 senators, 75 of whom were elected for life by the national assembly, the rest for nine years, by electoral colleges. These latter were composed of deputies, councils of the departments, and delegates of communes. The executive power was vested in a president, who was assisted by a responsible ministry. Republicanism was at last secured to France. Many changes have taken place in the application of the constitution to popular government since then, and much progress has been made in the practice of free government. The whole composition of the government reminds one of constitutional monarchy, with the exception that the monarch is chosen by the people for a short period of time.
Democracy in America. – The progress of democracy in America has been rapid. The first colonists were oppressed by the authority of European nations and bound by unyielding precedent. While the principle of local self-government obtained to a large extent in many of them, they partook more of aristocracies, or of governments based on class legislation, than of pure democracies. When independence from foreign countries was won by the united efforts of all the colonies, the real struggle for universal liberty began. A government was founded, so far as it was possible, on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which asserted "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"; and that "for securing these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The creation of a federal constitution and the formation of a perfect union guaranteed these rights to every citizen.
Yet in the various states forming a part of the Union, and, indeed, in the national government itself, it took a long time to approximate, in practice, the liberty and justice which were set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Still, in the past century, the people have become more and more closely connected with the state, and a "government of the people, for the people, and by the people" is a certainty. The laws which have been made under the Constitution increase in specific declarations of the rights of the people. Justice is more nearly meted out to all classes at present than in any decade for a century. The political powers of citizens have constantly enlarged. The elective franchise has been extended to all citizens of both sexes. The requirements as to naturalization of foreigners are exceedingly lenient, and thus free government is offered to all people.
Of necessity the central government has been strengthened on account of the enlargement of territory and the great extension of national governmental powers. It has been necessary that the central forces which bind the separate parts of the nation together in a common union should be strengthened. The result has been a decline in the importance and power of the state governments. On the other hand, the large increase of population in the great cities has tended to enhance the power and importance of local government. The government of a single large city now becomes more difficult and of greater vital importance to the people than that of a state.
The enlarged territory and increased population, and the enormous amount of legislative machinery, have tended to extend to its utmost limit the principle of representative government. Congress represents the people of the whole nation, but committees represent Congress and subcommittees represent committees. There is a constant tendency to delegate powers to others. Pure democracy has no place in the great American republic, except as it is seen in the local government unit. Here the people always have a part in the caucus, in the primary or the town meeting, in the election of local officers and representatives for higher offices, in the opportunity to exercise their will and raise their voice in the affairs of the nation. To some extent the supposed greater importance of the national government has led the people to underestimate the opportunities granted them for exercising their influence as citizens within the precinct in which they live. But there is to-day a tendency to estimate justly the importance of local government as the source of all reforms and the means of the preservation of civil liberty.
It has been pointed out frequently by the enemies of democracy that the practice of the people in self-government has not always been of the highest type. In many instances this criticism is true, for experience is always a dear teacher. The principles of democracy have come to people through conviction and determination, but the practices of self-government come through rough experiences, sometimes marked by a long series of blunders. The cost of a republican form of government to the people has frequently been very expensive on account of their ignorance, their apathy, and their unwillingness to take upon themselves the responsibilities of government. Consider, for instance, the thousands of laws that are made and placed upon the statute-books which have been of no value, possibly of detriment, to the community – laws made through the impulse of half-informed, ill-prepared legislators. Consider also the constitutions, constitutional amendments, and other important acts upon which the people express their opinion.
The smallness of the vote of a people who are jealous of their own rights and privileges is frequently surprising. Notice, too, how frequently popular power has voted against its own rights and interests. See the clumsy manner by which people have voted away their birthrights or, failing to vote at all, have enslaved themselves to political or financial monopoly. Observe, too, the expenses of the management of democratic governments, the waste on account of imperfect administration, and the failure of the laws to operate.
Consideration of these points brings us to the conclusion that the perfection of democracy or republican government has not been reached, and that while liberty may be an expensive affair, it is so on account of the negligence of the people in qualifying for self-government. If a democratic form of government is to prevail, if popular government is to succeed, if the freedom of the people is to be guaranteed, there must be persistent effort on the part of the people to prepare themselves for their own government; a willingness to sacrifice for liberty, for liberty will endure only so long as people are willing to pay the price it costs. They must govern themselves, or government will pass from them to others. Eternal vigilance is the price of good government.
Modern Political Reforms. – Political reform has been proceeding recently in many particular ways. Perhaps the most noticeable in America is that of civil service reform. Strong partisanship has been a ruling factor in American politics, often to the detriment of the financial and political interests of the country. Jealous of their prerogative, the people have insisted that changes in government shall occur often, and that the ruling party shall have the privilege of appointing the officers of the government. This has made it the almost universal practice for the incoming party to remove the officers of the old administration and replace them with its own appointments. To such an extent has this prevailed that it has come to be known as the "spoils system."
But there is now a general tendency for the principles of civil service to prevail in all parts of the national government, and a growing feeling that they should be instituted in the various states and municipalities of the Union. The federal government has made rapid progress in this line in recent years, and it is to be hoped that before long the large proportion of appointive offices will be put upon a merit basis and the persons who are best qualified to fill these places retained from administration to administration. Attempts are being made in nearly all of our cities for business efficiency in government, though there is much room for improvement.
The government of the United States is especially weak in administration, and is far behind many of the governments of the Old World in this respect. With a thoroughly established civil service system, the effectiveness of the administration would be increased fully fifty per cent. Under the present party system the waste is enormous, and as the people must ultimately pay for this waste, the burden thrown upon them is great. In the first place, the partisan system necessarily introduces large numbers of inexperienced, inefficient officers who must spend some years in actual practice before they are really fitted for the positions which they occupy. In the second place, the time spent by congressmen and other high officials in attention to applicants for office and in urging of appointments, prevents them from improving their best opportunity for real service to the people.
The practice of civil service reform is being rapidly adopted in the nations of the world which have undertaken the practice of self-government, and in those nations where monarchy or imperialism still prevails, persons in high authority feel more and more impelled to appoint efficient officers to carry out the plans of administrative government. It is likely that the time will soon come when all offices requiring peculiar skill or especial training will be filled on the basis of efficiency, determined by competitive examination or other tests of ability.
