The Old Regime and The Revolution – Alexis De Tocqueville

1789, the Bastille was taken and the old regime collapsed under the blows of a phenomenon without precedent “destroys the fabric of government, moves the foundations of society and seems to attack God himself.” Is it a revolution, Sir? No.

At least he is not a revolution as radical as appearances suggest, but simply the result certainly sudden and violent work of 10 generations of men. A civil society evolving finally broke the mold now too narrow and rigid institutions born of the feudal system. This sudden explosion has not led to anarchy, but a strengthening of central power

This is the central idea defended Alexis de Tocqueville.
Before developing his arguments, I would like to introduce the author to those who do not know. Tocqueville is a benchmark in political philosophy, just maybe Montesquieu, if not more. Magistrate of origin, he became known in 1835, following a stay in the U.S., where he started studying the prison system, by issuing “Democracy in America.” This work is a monument. (It may be the subject of an opinion, but this does not appear in my short-term projects). For Tocqueville the opportunity to start a  political career that led him to the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs for several months in 1849. Only after this experience he began research for what will be the work of maturity, “the old regime and Revolution,” not a story of the French Revolution, but a study of this revolution. The book was published in 1856 and Tocqueville died some years later.

According to the author, the old regime in France was particularly prepared the ground for the Revolution. I spoke earlier of a civil society in flux. This is indeed the case with an aristocracy who abandons his charges (excluding ordinary courts, which give income), closes on itself while it is being lost, but preserved and even increases its privileges, including exemption from taxes. The bourgeoisie, for failing to collect such taxes, fled the country and acquires its own privileges in town where it benefits from the sale of offices and adopt the lifestyle and education of the aristocracy. The farmer, who now owns the land and suffers from fragmentation of plots following the legacies left alone in rural, poor, isolated, uneducated and involved in everything (tax, militia, various chores).

Meanwhile, regional particularities fade when a powerful central government emerges amid the debris of the old power system. It relies on a strong administration. Nationally, the Council decides everything, relayed in the provinces by the steward and the sub-delegation. Everything that the administration is of special courts, which gradually increase their areas of jurisdiction. This phenomenon is so marked that very quickly, nobody can imagine carrying out a case without the state gets involved. This power is however limited by any small powers which remain scattered through the old ways and the idea, ingrained in society, everything is debatable.

The result is a society which calls for reform (rather than rights, moreover, like economists and Physiocrats), which involved more long in politics but oscillates between privileges and claims of equality, a society that is enamored of the ideals and philosophers who dream only of broad principles and large systems.

This company is undergoing significant changes, particularly in the forty years preceding the Revolution, it is more entrepreneurial, richer and more responsive in all social categories, the discourse on poverty, in spite of professed old institutions (the The example of Parliament which is deleted) and private property (especially by the State ruthlessly expropriated without compensation). In 1787, provincial assemblies were created later stewards. It’s total confusion. To simplify all the rules, to satisfy his hatred of inequality and its thirst for freedom, the nation that has lost faith in God, but remains confident in itself, is ready to sink into a violent upheaval.

However, once past the initial disappointment on freedom, there remains the desire for equality and above all a stronger central government and rid of all these customs and ancient powers that impeded.

I will not discuss here the arguments of Tocqueville. Many philosophers and sociologists have taken up and developed to their advantage. The conclusion we are familiar, however, given the place yet the state today in France, even if democracy has been much affirmed.

Hatred of inequality, love of freedom. Our dreams are they now so different from those of the revolutionaries?

Each will make its response to issues raised by Tocqueville. The fact remains that “the old regime and Revolution” is a book well written and argued, with relatively short chapters written in simple language. The play is fun, which is so often the case with this kind of work.