French Revolution and the Culture of Rights: A Statist Perspective
The Mutable Constitution and the Sovereign People
The French Constitution, as envisioned by the Revolution, is characterized by its inherent mutability. According to Article 28 of the 1793 Bill of Rights, the sovereign people possess the ultimate authority to revise, reform, and change their constitution, reflecting the political exigencies of the moment.
From Popular Sovereignty to Political Voluntarism
This elasticity reflects a shift from popular sovereignty to political voluntarism, echoing the radical-democratic contractualism of the French Revolution. The constitution becomes a reflection of the people’s will, adaptable to the ongoing struggle against perceived enemies.
Statism and the Stabilization of the Revolution
Following the Jacobin era, a statist approach to political freedoms emerged, aiming to consolidate and stabilize the revolution. This perspective shifted away from the continuous active participation of all citizens in political life. Instead, it emphasized law-abiding citizens, not necessarily virtuous or self-sacrificing for public affairs. The constitution and public authorities were tasked with ensuring citizens a space for private life—business, trade, family, and affections—while electoral processes became the primary mode of political engagement.
The Evolving Meaning of Voting Rights
The right to vote acquired a new meaning distinct from the Jacobin philosophy of active citizenship. It no longer presupposed the continuous physical presence of politically active citizens. Instead, it allowed citizens to delegate the exercise of public functions to a political class. This shift marked a decline in the village as a subject of political sovereignty, replaced by a system of powers guided by elected representatives.
The Rise of Representative Democracy and Statism
The focus shifted from “betraying the revolution” to “finishing the revolution,” thereby diminishing the role of direct democracy. Representative democracy, with its statist horizon, emerged. The people or nation existed through the mechanism of political representation, no longer autonomous.
The unifying factor became the shared recognition of authority represented by a democratically elected legislature. French citizenship was defined by representation in the French parliament.
Revolutionary culture thus oscillated between the extremes of voluntarism and statism: the sovereign people either posed a constant threat to the stability of power or existed only through the invention and practice of political representation.
The Guarantee of Rights: A Weak Point of the Revolution
The French Revolution’s approach to rights and freedoms, as articulated in Article 16 of the Bill of Rights, presents a paradox. While proclaiming that a constitutional government cannot exist without the guarantee of rights, this guarantee remained a weak and problematic point.
The Primacy of Abstract Law
Despite containing liberal-guarantor principles that influenced subsequent political systems (notably Articles 7, 8, and 9, which laid the groundwork for modern penal codes and criminal procedure), the Bill of Rights prioritized abstract law over specific cases. Everything referred to the law and the authority of the legislature.
The prevailing ideology emphasized the general and abstract law as the best instrument for guaranteeing rights. This approach aimed to ensure non-arbitrary governance, abolish personal domination, and establish the rule of law over individual will.
The Intertwining of Individualism and Statism
The revolutionary culture of rights and freedoms, while deeply individualistic and contractarian, intertwined with statist elements in critical areas:
- Civil Liberties: While the Bill of Rights initially affirmed pre-state individual rights as natural rights, it ultimately relied on a strong legislature to define and enforce these rights, making them inseparable from public authority.
- Political Freedoms: Despite asserting the supremacy of the sovereign body (people or nation), the revolution, fearing direct manifestations of sovereignty, embraced the doctrine of political representation. This doctrine channeled constituent power into elected representatives, effectively grounding popular sovereignty in the authority of representatives.
However, the revolution was not entirely dominated by statism. It arose from the injustices of the old regime, characterized by personal domination and limitations on individual freedom. The concept of constituent power emerged as a fundamental political freedom, enabling citizens to decide their political order.
The Legacy of Statism in Post-Revolutionary Europe
The statist element of the revolution profoundly influenced post-revolutionary political systems in continental Europe. These systems developed within the rigid framework established by the revolution, inheriting a statist model that became dominant. This model, emphasizing a strong public power as a necessary condition for individual rights and national unity, contrasted with the individualistic and contractual images of pre-state rights and popular sovereignty.
The Guarantee of Rights: A Statist Approach
The guarantee of rights was heavily conditioned by the revolutionary context and the political systems that followed. A statist cultural and institutional framework became essential.
Unlike the British model, which prioritized judicial oversight over the legislature and drew upon customary practice to affirm rights against the claims of rulers, the French Revolution could not adopt such an approach. The historical experience of the absolute state, where judges were seen as potential enemies of national unity or inheritors of aristocratic privilege, made judicial independence suspect. It was perceived not as a check on government power but as a threat to national sovereignty.
The French Revolution’s Rejection of the British Model
Rejecting the British solution, the French Revolution prioritized the sovereign public power over individual rights and freedoms. The initial articles of the 1789 Declaration of Rights sought refuge in the pre-state notion of natural law. However, this did not resolve the issue of guaranteeing rights. The question remained: how and why should the legislature and those in power feel bound by individual natural rights?