The Old Regime and the Revolution by De Tocqueville - Book Report/Review Example

The French Revolution was one significant event that had a rippling effect throughout Europe and the world over. It was an episode nonetheless that had more substance politically than it does as a democratic success.1 In his book, “The Old Regime and the Revolution,” De Tocqueville prefaced on the opinion that the French Revolution did not do so much to change the prevailing culture that has been cultivated by the previous rule. Rather, he argued, that to some extent it had worsened certain aspects of the former administrative predicaments. By revisiting the rural areas of the country he discerned that the people are confounded between abolishing all vestige of the monarchy and yet bound to hold on to its ethos. A functional democracy has to have clear elements that the populace has to adhere to, namely, rule of law, an acceptable opposition, freedom of speech, a constitution, autonomous courts, political parties contending and an electoral system.2 These are the underlying factors that the author correlated to the aftermath of the French Revolution on his book. De Tocqueville cited three factors that became deterrent to the full fruition of its causes. First is the premise of the revolution to the aversion towards religion because of its political inclination to amass land. This includes the problem of farmers and how the situation has not changed for them. Second, no proper revision of the law was truly enforced, therefore, implementation became varied. Third, law enforcers remained to be seen as adversary to the people. These apprehensions remained and even amplified, though the regime had long collapsed. The revolution was undeniably a reiteration of the philosophies of the era. Arguably, these ideas were deeply rooted in Marxist principles. The equality of all men, the eradication of all classes, homogeny of policies and popular rule are the core essence of the revolution. These philosophies were largely irreligious in nature. Those who led the uprising explicitly attacked the church. It was abhorred more for its political proclivity and not purposely for its religious tradition and teachings. Neither was this because it has become misplaced in the new society that was forming.3 The church symbolized the power that the revolution contested to overthrow. It represented an institution that governed to manipulate the thinking of men which impeded them toward the realization of the concept that was freedom. The revolution aimed at a complete eradication of all practices that governed them in the past. It had become necessary therefore that the church be expunged for the nation to move on to its reconstruction. It has, in this essence also become a religious revolution. This has ultimately awoken proselytism among the citizens. Among the noblest cause of the revolution was the laying of liberty from servitude. Before it they were subject to the strictest rule of the ‘seigniors,’ serfs were punishable through a dominical court for any wrongdoing. Parishes owned a large part of the land and governed over the peasants tilling the soil. Though not directly amalgamated, it was apparent that the church was one of the leading proponents of the feudal system.4 As the farmers became able to own land injustices such as tithing on produce and rental fees became evident to them. These were apparent still as they transformed into landowners, hence, financial indebtedness restricted them to develop the land. They may be owners of their own patches of the earth but their circumstances have not changed. They were still bound by service to one form or another. Feudalism which hinders the common people to progress remained to be the greatest enslaver of the masses.5 True as it was, the priests carried the responsibility of overseeing the welfare of the underprivileged within their proximity. They were duty-bound to look after the education and scarcity problems of their parishioners. After they lost political power, the council had no option but to overtake this task which was often delivered insufficiently. The government imposed mechanisms to thrust them to progress that were never rightly realized. The second argument De Tocqueville posted regarding the evidence that there wasn’t much change brought about by the revolt directs to the municipal level of government and the enforcement of the law. During the regime, the monarch sold municipal positions to aristocratic families and let them govern each town ceaselessly after election was discontinued in 1692. Louis XIV then put an end to this when he recognized the independence ensuing in each town but reverted back to selling positions so as to obstruct their autonomy.6 Following the revolution, local governments became more difficult to distinguish. In most parts it was governed by two assemblies. Yet it was evident that each municipality still adheres to customs from the past regime. The general assemblies were composed of ‘notables’ who acquired position by value of their posting instead of elected officers.7 The divide intensified as municipal posting in the eighteenth century was made-up of oligarchs who were not cognizant of administration. They do not recognize public accountability for they attained position in the sole purpose of personal interest. The council would often pass questionable laws devoid of examination and public knowledge. The government at the time detached the court of law from the administration. Despite this proclamation the government still interfered with the judiciary. What is even more perilous though is if the judiciary would meddle with the government for it damages the business of the municipality.8 These factors contributed to the subsequent failure of a truly centralized government. It has been verified that centralization pursues governments that follow a monarchy. This was not necessarily the case for France. Provincial governments remained and political power limited to a few was prevalent. This indicates that there was not much difference between the previous and the latter. Aggrandizement by these aristocrats was still rampant and the change of government and policies never hindered them to accrue more wealth and power. Finally, what was prevalent was the palpable agenda of the government to protect its agents under disputable means. Stern set of laws that are slackly implemented was the tune the enforcers dance to at the time.9 The unrelenting quiet disapproval for law enforcers lodged between the people and authority broadened. The very sight of the police would instigate fear to the people whether they are involved in any transgression or not. The dilemma over land mounded. Peasants were buying land to a fault. It did not matter that they were purchasing for a cost much higher than the actual value. This phenomenon left them no chance but to be indebted to creditors. Inequality in taxing and rent buried farmers in a quicksand and thwarted them from being able to cultivate and advance their trade. Efforts of the government to teach them innovative farming technologies became moot. The nobility never really extinguished their power. They remained looming and directing the country on the sidelines. It was just a matter of distinguishing between the old and new nobility which are one and the same in essence. By revisiting the provinces the author was able to analyze that what arose from the ashes of the revolution was not all that it was cut out to be. It was such a transcendent event yet all its principles were never truly executed. Some of the episodes that followed became even contributory to the regress of the people and to some effect this waning was adverse. The French Revolution has always brought to mind an almost romantic aura for the reason of its radicalism and indispensable impact to our history books. It was the first single most fundamental movement to successfully topple a monarchy and all that ensued in such haste fashion. True as all these may be, De Tocqueville was able to expound on what was truly happening in France after the regime. It was, as he noted, the perfect time to render a proper examination of the events after the regime. The French were determined to hang on to the custom of the past. In many respects the revolution was not wholly the prime mover of the many provisions they implemented. These were already at play beforehand and the shift of government did not do anything to change them. Because of this, the revolution was not triumphant in its aims. They were not able to anticipate the impact or lack thereof that they were enforcing. Most of advancements they presented were but mere imitation of the ones formerly at work. Some of which seemed suitable when scrutinized at face value but were disfigured and detrimental in execution due to the dynamics at play. The main objective of the movement was the absolute elimination of the former structure of society and in this matter the revolution was an utter failure. What developed after the French Revolution is a testament to what Alphonse Carr said, “The more things change, the more they remain the same.”10 Bibliography De Tocqueville, Alexis. The Old Regime and the Revolution. Translated by John Bonner. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1856. Sharansky, Nathan. The Case for Democracy the Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny & Terror. United States: Balfour Books, 2006. Read More