To what extent does popular rule achieve social justice? Modernist scholars romanticize the French Revolution, where the common people rose and overthrew a corrupt establishment. A social pinnacle, where the foundations of feudalism and old order were torn up to create something new. However, its legacy is one of hypocrisy, showing how radical and unchecked populism causes the death of the state.
In 1793, the pressure of popular rule caused the French to overthrow their social institutions based on the abstract promise of liberty. After King Louis XVI’s execution, the violence increased with Robespierre’s Terror, where forty thousand people were executed regardless of guilt or class to maintain revolutionary virtue. This period of the Revolution reflects the dangers of popular social justice; the removal of the monarchy and public discontent became a power grab for revolutionary figureheads. Left unchecked, it becomes an unquenchable desire that is hard to satisfy. Once the ruling establishment was overthrown, the Republic turned on itself, paranoid about maintaining a specific interpretation of virtue.
Plato argues against democracy because popular rule causes the electorate to vote on their passion rather than the common good. The Revolution is an example of this argument because the French traded their security for a vague and temporary perception of liberty. Power was handed to ambitious men, that subordinated the welfare of the state to prove their revolutionary virtue. Their paranoia led to barbarism, which claimed many lives in France.
Social justice and popular rule are weak foundations for democratic governments. Over time, the state’s support becomes its adversary, which often leads to the formation of totalitarian regimes. Napoleon Bonaparte rescued France from its anarchy, only to restore the institutions that the first French Republic had overthrown. In 1793 reform was needed, but would the first French Republic have survived if it kept its social institutions rather than yielding to popular rule?
The radical pursue of social justice through popular rule is unethical because it creates more damage than change. France was dragged from one political experiment to the next in the name of liberty, claiming lives rather than freeing them. Historical precedent shows that democratic faith is the best approach to social justice because it pressures the establishment to recognize the will of the population. We fail to recognize the mutual dependence in the social contract; a democratic government relies on the electorate to keep its power, and the population relies on the government to maintain their civil rights.
When the French destroyed their state, they destroyed all notions of social justice. It is a virtue achieved within the state and should be guided by reason, not blind passion. Their passion for retribution caused their liberty to collapse into anarchy. Furthermore, revolutionary violence only allowed Napoleon to intervene, thus sacrificing liberty to restore order.
I think this is a fascinating post! Your points about how romanticising revolutions and popular rule are so important because people like to forget the insane human toll that revolutions can take to achieve their goals – erasing this violence and destruction is dangerous. That being said, sometimes violence seems to be the only option for those under systems like the feudal system – of course, violence is not something to be endorsed. Still, I do think there is merit in revolutionary violence in places like St Domingue, which managed to gain its independence, emancipate its slaves and become Haiti after the French revolution sparked revolutions on the plantations there. I think there will always be people attempting to profit off of revolutions and Napoleon is a great example of this, but in saying these generalising revolutions and the violence may be as dangerous as romanticising revolutions.