|
|
|
Chapter 15
Page: 202-223
Chapter 15
(202)
CHAPTER XV
Thoughts of Jean-Jacques Rousseau regarding legislators; abrupt changes in governments should be avoided; there are on average no more than nine people steering the revolution; comparison between old tyrannies and modern ones.
The great argument which served as a pretext for the general upheaval was this:
"There is no constitution in France at present and this is necessary to give the empire an imperturbable stability." We shall soon see that France already had a constitution, but it was a new one that they wanted – a good one with the fewest possible defects and thus it was worth spending time on it.
The Americans deliberated over theirs and they collected all the votes before putting it into force. If their deputies in the congress had said to the people, "We are the absolute masters; obey our laws
(203)
whether they be good or bad. Promise to change nothing (even though some disorder may arise from it) because we are infallible,” probably the Americans, without hesitation would have welcomed the chains again from which they had tried to extricate themselves. No doubt the new chains would have appeared heavier than the old ones. As for the rest, the situation in America and France cannot really be compared. The first shook the yoke of England and constituted a republic which was a good thing, but their population is not even a fifth that of France. Also they created a federated republic, not a unified republic. Furthermore, they are isolated and they have a peaceful and religious nature. None of these factors existed in France.
The French are numerous; their national character is one of levity, inconsistency, and the French have an excessive enthusiasm for innovations and extremes.
However, as there is a marked influence between customs and government, it follows that the government of one place cannot always be in agreement with that of another. For this reason Solon did not imitate Liourgue. It is
(204)
certain that the inclination of people towards morals [moral fibre] is more useful for social order than the best political institutions, and at the time of the revolution the French had a great propensity for notoriety and immorality.
Jean Jacques Rousseau, the same man who appeared to follow wise maxims blindly said, "He who formulates laws should not be a leader of men, because the function of a legislator has nothing in common with empire-building; otherwise laws – the fruits of his passions - would too often only perpetuate injustices, and never could he prevent peculiar views from diminishing the sanctity of his work." [ie. there should be a separation between the legislative and executive branches of government.]
In spite of this great truth, our legislators commanded men in every possible way and this is what spoiled the sanctity of their work. The same writer said, "It is important in policy-making to avoid abrupt changes. One should not fill the state with malcontents and never shake the machine abruptly." However, that did not prevent them from making abrupt changes even to the point of destroying the machine in order to put everything in reverse all the more quickly. Most of the great politicians
(205)
thought like the author of the Social Contract. All wrote that the great changes in a state should take place gradually and that nothing extreme should be ventured.
However, rash innovations were pushed in making constitutional experiments which exposed one not only to the dangerous remedies of the malcontents but also to the condemnation of the whole of Europe. And this is what the malcontents applauded! The experiment proved that the ‘hydra of despotism’ consisting of only one head was less odious than the despotism of the multitude. It is a political fact that an absolute democracy is much closer to tyranny that a despotic state. Thus the outraged democrats who own property are frogs that require a sovereign to protect them – the very ‘hydra’ which could also devour them.
The national assembly regarded itself as the representatives of a barbaric nation that had been plunged into servitude until the year 1789. It believed that it had to create a civilized society consequently it scorned all that it had now and destroyed everything indiscriminately.
(206)
It would have been better to leave the old forms, to improve upon them, and finally to produce greater freedom by the right use of its mechanisms. Then France would have had the best possible government; the greatest income of Europe derived from its inexhaustible mines; trade and commerce based on its own productions; a wise constitution based on a stable foundation; a strong monarchy; a disciplined army; a more popular nobility, well-composed regional governments; incorruptible judges, and tolerant clerics.
Instead of all that, we have a government without checks-and-balances. Consequently nothing is stable and nothing works.
But (say the elite) what is there to complain about? No, nothing but contradictory laws; those which support oppression; those which destroy personal freedom; those which uphold license, audacity, bondage in the place of liberty, impunity of the most atrocious crimes, oligarchical despotism, force put in the hands of those who should be subject to law; the abuse of authority; the lack of safety; dreadful inquisitions by the committees; obstacles put in the way of one’s right to travel; difficulty in receiving one’s income; bizarre laws by
(207)
which the legislative body, instead of making laws, placed at its disposal the military forces, seized all the administrations, reserved for itself the examination of those who were accused of crimes as well as the right to suspend charges, destroying established procedures, pronouncing prohibitions; acting on complaints about people judged on the hearsay of those acquainted with them; finally, in reversing totally every established convention possible.
With such principles the national assembly fooled all the governments. It congratulated itself for its skill, fabricating public spectacles of popular support thus diverting the cries of indignation. It tried to turn all the French people into philosophers and made efforts to propagate this national philosophy to all nations. And the legislators said, “We are working for your happiness. We want to restore happiness to all you good French people!” Of course the class which happens to like anarchy believed in this brand of happiness because now they could do anything without fear of being hung.
In reality is it possible to conceive of 1,200 people of varying tempers, provinces and characters formulating a body of laws which requires profound wisdom and fairness?
(208)
Can anything good come from an assembly where everyone has the right to be unreasonable and still expect to arrive at the place which exists in England? Laws are the fruit of human reason, and reason does not like tumult and upheaval. On average no more than nine people ran the revolution beside the lantern of history which revealed the same age-old foundation of impaired logic. Let us try to prove this truth.
The republic of Athens was under the thumb of thirty tyrants who seized all the powers and misused them. These tyrants ruined and devastated according to their whims and made the blood flow from all those who were suspicious of them. They ordered visits to homes and made arrests; they ordered proscriptions and confiscations.
(209)
They burned, they pillaged, they accused, they delivered people up to torment. They had their ‘Place de la revolution’; they condemned masses of accused people without bothering to hear their defence, and they massacred citizens in the streets. [See the lawsuit of Lisias, translated by Athanase Auger.]
In France, the French tyrants did not take the trouble to imagine or plan their crimes; they simply built on the rubble of the well-known atrocities of the revolution.
In Athens the Ephores at Lacédémone, created by king Théopompe, originally were nothing more than inspectors but soon they became the Masters. Here we have the equivalent in history of the first deputies of the French nation.
(210)
The people of Athens came to look upon them as their protectors. No longer were the Ephores content to be mere representatives of the nation, now they wanted absolute control over it. Their power went to their heads. Their power became arbitrary and they put to death anyone who looked like a culprit without even bothering to put him on trial. Thus in the centre of a republic, magistrates that were created without necessity became unbearable tyrants. [See Plutarque and Aristotle.]
Indeed, any redundant mechanism unbalances a machine and causes it to go awry.
Xénophon foisted the conspiracy of Cinadon on the reign of Agésilas. This Cinadon was the equivalent of the duc d’Orleans for the French.
(211)
Cinadon was an ambitious man who did not want to see in Sparta a man more powerful than himself. "You see, (he said to one his accomplices) that we are the strongest. The Ilotes, the new citizens, will be for us [ Xen, Hellen, liv. 3.].” In France the refrain was, “You see, that we are the strongest. The sans-culottes, the new citizens are for us!”
Caesar Augustus was indifferent with respect to crime or virtue. All that mattered to him was his own personal interests for which he employed, according to the circumstance, weapons, laws, religion, pleasures. All were equal to him provided that he remained the Master. The national assembly possessed precisely the same spirit of domination.
Ethelred, the king of England, massacred the Danes in 978. He had their women half-buried up to their waists and then ordered vicious mastiffs to be unleashed upon these unfortunate people. The French national assembly, on the other hand, tolerated or permitted scenes no less barbaric.
(212)
Patriots drawn from prisons danced around an excellent man whom they had just seized, and full of exuberance they made him twist and turn in response to jabs from bayonets. Thus they were able to make him dance with them, they said. Meanwhile several other common patriots or rascals argued over the barbarian pleasure of tearing apart a virtuous citizen and then eating his members. This man had just made his will and left his fortune to his torturers. At Lille the revolutionary soldiers killed
(213)
their General Dillon, roasting him in the manner of cannibals, and then ate him. The people also ate Belzunce in Caen.
Jean Santerre, William, king of Scotland, and Henri II, the Henri who lived under Louis the young, formed an alliance of rogues. The French national assembly gathered together whatever was impure and immoral to compose a similar alliance of rogues. The soldiers of Henri II were called Routiers or Cattereaux which meant robbers or highwaymen. The assembly’s equivalent were the sans-culottes.
In the year 1200 Philippe Auguste plundered the clergy, and Richard the Lion Heart, needing money, stole from the Jews. Then he sold their properties, assets and titles.
The national assembly went further: it despoiled the churches completely. The assembly burned the castles, cancelled the titles, and devastated the churches.
(214)
This same Richard provided an example for the men of the Mountain [Jacobins], by creating a school of death which trained fanatics for the purpose of assassinating Philippe Auguste. Everyone knows that a regiment of regicides was also proposed in France. What outrageous things were contained in this idea! I have reasons for not expounding upon them further.
Here is a verse from that time:
Regarding king Richard of England,
Having indoctrinated the children
In order to purify them
By them Richard hopes
To put to death the king of France
The king known as Louis
Keeping in reserve night and day
Sergeants and the mass.
(215)
In former times Richard III and Edward IV had judges condemn those who were suspected of not being sympathetic to them. Louis XI had the same policy and Philippe de Commines was responsible for similar legal atrocities. France’s national assembly believed enough in perversity to have laws serve the cause of vengeance. The idea of justice is such a high ideal and primary truth that often the greatest crimes which afflict society are made under a false pretext of justice. Consequently the petty thief says, “Let’s regain our well-being at the expense of the rich" while the sanguinary Conspirators say, "Let’s avenge the fatherland for the crimes committed by tyrants!" Rogues rationalize their nefarious deeds by pressing them forward on the feet of ‘justice’ and thus they pay their homage to it. "Hypocrisy is
(216)
the homage that the reprobate consider a virtue.” Thoughts of Laroche- Foucault.
To captivate the people in former times, Cromwell feigned affection for the popular government even though he wanted to reign exclusively. Thus he took the name of Lord Protector. The national assembly assumed the same measures. It created the clubs and elevated to lofty heights people without names, letters, without talents, and, furthermore, those known to be scoundrels. The deputies of the people, no longer wanting to be mere agents, became the supreme heads of the nation. The committee of research was the invention of the English monster Henri VIII to find victims at will. The national assembly took the same route.
(217)
A mission of apostles to preach disorganization is an old one. The fanatics of Munster renewed it and the National Assembly also made good use of it. National parades and festivals were invented by the Inquisition. For French legislators the object of the festivals was to perpetuate a climate of agitation.
As in the manner of the preceding examples, actions always followed the route of maximum difficulty and upheaval. Never were solutions sought that flowed from the natural order of things. And always the knots had to be severed with blows from a sword in the same way that Alexander sliced through the Gordian knot.
No faction is without its rowdy characters. The spirit of a party is, quite naturally, that of fanaticism, and when the fanatic speaks he has in his eyes, voice and gesture a contagious poison which he flings about with abandon. That is so true for the factious fanatic, the passionate spokesman, or conspirator who would rather
(218)
inflame a province with his rhetoric – something that a hundred wise men never would have considered.
Everywhere people behave the same way. To make changes through revolution, always the same means are employed. There is nothing new under the sun.
One begins with a hypocritical affection for a popular issue. Then one inflames the spirits through passionate cries of ‘freedom’, ‘equality’ and the promise for all to share in the windfall riches. Inflammatory banners and posters get posted which drives some to plundering and propagating terror. Certain victims get singled out and their bloody heads get paraded in the streets. Instigators lavish their money to cause popular riots in order to multiply the number of agitators. True public opinion is censored and morals are corrupted. Ideas must be wild and confused in order to justify and foster excesses of all kinds. The most licentious and scandalous people are elevated to positions of authority. Then the well-educated man is demonized so as to appear a villain. The meanings of words change. ‘Wisdom’ becomes ‘indifference’ – a criminal offence. ‘Wealth’ becomes an offence against equality. ‘Philosophy’ is an attack on patriotism. In short, all true passions are turned sour and without knowing why, the people (always quick to take action) plunder, steal, murder, set fires, and finally go wherever they are led.
Where shall we go? To the home of an aristocrat!
(219)
If one had said to him instead, “Go to the home of Patagon!” the people would have replied, “Yes, let’s all go to the home of Patagon. He must be murdered and his family must be condemned!”
The world is a stage whose scenes are constantly being repeated everywhere. History attests to this truth. Compare the life of tyrants throughout history and you will always find that the same path is taken.
Here is a passage on tyranny translated from Lieb-Rose, a German author.
"Oléares declared himself to be the protector of rogues. The honest man found no comfort from him because the honest man cannot crawl and beg sufficiently well. Placing the general good above his own interests, he is devoted to what he can do to contribute to the re-establishment of good order. Insults and injustices are the rewards he receives for his generous sacrifices. He gets crushed in cold blood because innocence is the object of those who persecute others. Yes, those with ambition require it.
"This one glories in his indifference for the honest man. Another who recognizes the injustice being done but too timid to do anything about it, lets him become overpowered. Still another studies the matter to death, hides, and keeps to himself all the rampant frauds and artifices being perpetrated.
(220)
”If the tyrant’s injustices are revealed, he will naturally turn to his protectors for safety but the time will inevitably come for remorse and regret."
It is an indisputable fact that the subversion of an empire is often easier to undertake than the overcoming of some mundane difficulties. One requires only brute force while the other needs the application of genius. Consequently there was so much clamor to change everything and to cut everything down. Wouldn’t it have been better to distinguish between the complex and mundane problems and to tackle them individually especially when one has abundant examples from all the nations in the universe to serve as a guide?
Why were we brought back to the era of Goths and Vandals by a standing army of citizens known to be incapable of discipline? Indeed, why take the head of a household and turn him into a soldier? What! One strives to form a government based on freedom while the other wishes that any head of a family places himself without reservation (contrary to his liking) under the cane of an officer!
It is well said that a nation consents to the natural order of things. [Natural Law.] But the nation, of course, consists of the whole of the French population and certainly if, from the total, you remove that portion of the laboring class whose status was
(221)
suddenly elevated to middle-class and which consists not a tenth part of the whole, I maintain that the remainder is composed mostly of dissatisfied citizens. A portion of the laboring class was lured away by fancy shoulder decorations, or to become heads of government departments and districts. They became inflated by their authority and self-importance. Municipal workers were proud to be invested with sweeping powers. Many were fools who wished to play an important role. Some were farmers who suddenly become land owners. Others were speculators who became the nouveau riche having bought funds at a tenth of their value and then quadrupled their capital by reselling it again. If you remove this nouveau riche class which, in general, showed only baseness, then I maintain that the revolution has not been a benefit to France. For the most part, the masses are a body of puppets which became agitated according to the will of their accomplices and leaders.
When one consults travelers, all those who have left the borders of France will tell you that nobody will admit to having taken part in the new government without exposing himself to contempt.
As for the rest, there is only common agreement that France is a more miserable place than ever before and that a political schism animates the spirits of the people whose hatred reaches down into the very centre of families. Former business owners are ruined and public revenues no longer have any more channels in which to circulate.
(222)
Trade is destroyed; all the things necessary for life no longer have a value in proportion to other commodities.
Was it not enough to wreak havoc on the business owners alone? Was it also necessary to deprive those whose only income was a meager pension? Undoubtedly there were abuses in pensions but one must not confuse legitimate pensions acquired for services rendered with those bestowed out of favoritism or perhaps for cowardly complicity with the status quo.
One did not have to say, like Camus to an old faithful soldier, “You provided no real service to the nation” because such a statement could only have its source in a gangrenous heart. It wasn’t necessary that thousands of unfortunate soldiers who had withdrawn to their provinces, living on a moderate pension, were exposed to the horrors of deprivation. One did not have to say to an honest man of the house of Montagnac and now without an income: “Go to your parents for support!” This kind of counsel, worthy of the abbot Terray, proves a dreadful relaxation of morals. When such disorder and anarchy filled France with terror, one did not have to say in ironic mockery, “You see, we finally made you happy! And those who do not believe
(223)
in the happiness which we have provided is a scoundrel - an aristocrat unworthy of our kindness.”
|
|
|
|
