This essay aims to compare how democracies are affected from a revolutionary aspect, such as when democracies were founded and then from an evolutionary aspect, where events result in a shift in democratic structure. It will focus on France and the
United States of America, two of the earliest modern democracies, which were created in the eighteenth century and greatly informed by their differing histories of political upheaval and revolution. In order to make these cases the nature of the uprisings in the eighteenth century, their alternative effects shall be looked at, as well an analysis of more recent events in the nineteenth and twentieth century.
The result of the French Revolution of 1789 has been a flitting between constitutional monarchy, dictatorship and various republics, as well as German occupation during the Second World War. The French Revolution was unique in that it, as Hague, Harrop and Breslin argue “swept away medieval structures of power and accelerated the creation of modern nation-states which dominate the contemporary world”. It also helped to speed up major economic and political growth through removing the control that the aristocracy and church held over the peasantry, which in turn laid the groundwork for more representative, democratic government. However, France’s revolution was not a stable one. They also point out that “once the common enemy has been removed, the glue dissolves”, which helps to explain why the revolution didn’t result in stability and why France’s political system seems to swing between various forms of democracy, and authoritarian rule.
Charles De Gaulle’s Fifth Republic (1958 onwards) was an attempt to correct the weaknesses of the Third and Fourth Republics, as the executive and the National Assembly’s ability to get bogged down by petty squabbles left it both weak and unrepresentative. For example, in the twelve years of the Fourth Republic there were 25 different governments, as political infighting made it impossible to meter out any stable coalition, with the president spending much of his time trying to hold together the parliament. Wright claims the difficulty in parliament choosing a president meant that “they were seen as the creatures and prisoners of the members of parliament who had elected them and who, when choosing the president, had sought to avoid the election of a strong personality – a man who might prove a danger both to the privileges and prerogatives of parliament and to the republic itself”. For example, it took Rene Cote, the last president of the Fourth Republic thirteen ballots in order to get elected, a waste of time and a battering to any political leader’s prestige. It is also put across that any “presidential power was exercised only so long as it was tolerated by parliament and the government”.
These factors resulted in France’s inability to deal effectively with any major events, such as uprisings in Indochina (1954) and Algeria (1956). This is highlighted by Roskin who points out that people saw the Fourth Republic as “unable to settle the ghastly Algerian War” and views that “if a premier was too effective, other politicians sometimes vote against him out of resentment”. To prove this he cites Pierre Mendes’ dismissal from the National Assembly as being an example of jealousy over his success at dealing with the Indochina uprising. Williams proposes that as a result of all this infighting government even became unrepresentative, operating “with no reference to the general public”.
On the other hand, Wright does highlight how the Fourth Republic Presidents did exercise more authority than their predecessors in the Third Republic, asserting that “both were always intimately involved in the delicate negotiations which preceded the formation of any new government and marshalling parliamentary support for that government once it presented itself to the Assembly for investiture.” He also highlights that “a determined president could try to block proposals and wait for the ineluctable collapse of the ministry: the succeeding prime minister might prove more sympathetic or more pliable”, but of course the time it would take to achieve this would be extremely detrimental.
America initially existed as a loose collection of colonies, principally in New England, in the North and the Southern states, with different rules and freedoms handed by the “motherland”, England. The United States formed following the War of Independence was a response to England taxing the colonies without any form of representation. It had difficulties trying to maintain the confederation, as these governments had previously existed alongside and independently of each other, with Alex De Tocqueville noticing that “each of them, having always had a separate existence and a government within its control, had created peculiar interests”. The constitution had to recognise that the states individual control was the greatest priority, which De Tocqueville agreed with, noting that “social resources would be more wisely and judiciously employed, if the administration of the whole country were concentrated in one pair of hands. But the political advantages derived by the Americans from a system of decentralisation would make me prefer that to the opposite system”. He also felt that America is right to allow states to rule but leave administering to a central authority.
On the other hand, the writers of the revised American Constitution in 1787 had to include a backbone of central government or the states would be paralysed. The peace resulting from independence highlighted the defects in the original 1781 legislation. The united state had disintegrated, leaving each colony to become an independent state, which left America not able to find “resources sufficient to stand up to the Indian tribes or to pay the interest on debts contracted during the War of Independence”. As a result of these flaws the Union was given the exclusive rights of making war and peace, concluding commercial treaties, levying armies and equipping fleets, as well as maintaining currency and the post office.
The President of America is restricted domestically by congress. Hague, Harrop, and Breslin feel that “the president seeks to influence Congress but cannot dictate to it, Presidential power is in essence the power to persuade.” As mentioned earlier, in the Fourth Republic of France the president had similar difficulties, but to an even greater extent. On the other hand, Wright saw that the Fifth Republic allowed Charles Gaulle (and his successors) “to be above politics and politicians” and control domestic policy. The president is seen as being more represented and because of the weakened position of the French Parliament, backed up by Roskin’s claim that ministers were “reduced to messenger boys”. Although the American President is the most representative member of government he is weaker than France because of the strength of congress and the federal structure which exists in America.
The American constitution unlike the French one which has been revised frequently, has been almost set in stone, Roskin feels that “the Americans regard their Constitution with an almost religious awe, not to be touched in its basic provisions, the French…have seen constitutions come and go and are not adverse to rewriting the basic rules of their political game every few decades.” However, there have been some minor changes, “from the New Deal onwards, the American public looked to the White House rather than Congress for political leadership.” asserts Hague, Harrop, and Breslin, also pointing out how there was a change back towards Congress from the 1970s, a “reaction to the so-called ‘imperial’ presidency” .
In many ways the democracies of America and France are similar, with both presidents being universally elected and them being able to choose the cabinet. However, there are marked differences partly as a result of their democratic founding, such as whether it was through uprising against and internal or external enemy and events which led to either a movement or shift in presidential influence, such as the Algerian crisis or the New Deal. On the other hand, there are other factors which could have as strong a bearing on how these democracies have existed, such as geography. The size of the nation could quite easily help to explain why federalism exists in the United States and not France. Similarly, America’s ability to stay politically stable may be because it has not been in such proximity with aggressive nations as France.
This essay was written by Jonathan McHugh in April 2004
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment