Napoleon III and the French Second Empire, Roger Price [black books to read .TXT] 📗

forgotten. Louis-Napoléon’s electoral victory was evidence of the importance of historical myth but in the particular circumstances created by the long mid-century crisis, a complex series of inter-related economic and political crises with devastating social consequences. It was this situation which made it possible for Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, previously known for his two adventurous but essentially mad-cap attempts to seize power through military coups, to finally succeed.

Varying approaches to the period

Historians have usually presented the Second Empire as a political drama in two acts. Their focus has primarily been on high politics and the character of Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte. The regime’s ignoble origins in a coup d’état and the tragedy of its final humiliating collapse in the war of 1870 have loomed large. As ever, the approach taken by historians has been shaped by the concerns of their own time. At first, the dominant trend – as republicans struggled to secure the Third Republic (1870–1940) – was marked by bitter hostility. The combination of a carefully researched political narrative with moral indignation was exemplified by the journalist Eugène Ténot in two works on the coup d’état, published even before the Empire had disappeared. At its height in the 1930s and 1940s it identified Napoléon III as a precursor of Fascism. More positive assessments were also beginning to appear. Thus, from the inter-war years of the twentieth century and during the period of reconstruction following the devastation of World War II, historians’

interests shifted to reflect a widespread concern about French ‘backwardness’ and

‘stagnation’. They looked for lessons from what were judged to be the regime’s constructive ‘technocratic’ achievements and, particularly, the reconstruction of Paris, the creation of a ‘modern’ transportation infrastructure and, more broadly, the establishment of the conditions for rapid economic growth. More recently, our knowledge of the period has been enlarged considerably by social historians 2

working at community or regional level. The traditional ‘top down’ approach to history with its focus on ‘high’ politics has been neatly supplemented by a ‘bottom up’ perspective much more concerned with the experience of the urban and rural masses.

State and society

The study of political leadership is undoubtedly of crucial importance; so too are questions about the nature of social and political systems. Their structures, both formal and informal, regulate the ways in which political authority can be exercised and provide environments for the creation of more diffuse political cultures. If the objectives political leaders set for themselves need to be identified, so too does the context within which they operate. The factors serving to reinforce or to restrict their authority are of obvious importance. It should be borne in mind also that governments are far from being unitary enterprises, but are frequently riven by internal rivalries and marked by a practical incapacity to achieve their objectives fully. Effectiveness depends in part on institutional design, but additionally on economic and social circumstances and frequently on the impact of largely

uncontrollable external events. Thus, France during the Second Empire might be seen as a society in transition, undergoing (as so many parts of the contemporary developing world) an accelerating process of industrialisation and urbanisation, as part of which farming was increasingly commercialised and the rural world

integrated into the national society. This might be described, without too much exaggeration, as the result of a communications’ revolution, the product of the ongoing improvement of transport, of rising literacy levels and the development of the mass media. As a result, politics was not concerned simply with state–society relationships, but with the efforts of members of old and new elites to reach a compromise over the share of political power, as the vital means of securing their control over a rapidly changing, if still predominantly rural, world.

This pamphlet will attempt to build on the work of other historians and, most notably, that of Alain Corbin, Louis Girard, Vincent Wright and Theodore Zeldin (see Bibliography). While concentrating on a particular period and regime, the essential approach will remain problem orientated, although in the limited space available many crucially important questions will simply be noted rather than resolved. It will focus on the machinery of state, on the personnel involved (see also Price 1990: 27f), on policy formulation and upon its impact. Its initial emphasis, in 3

this introductory chapter, will be on state–society relations viewed from the perspective of the state. Its subject matter will include some of the central issues of socio-political history, including the identity of those individuals and social groups enjoying privileged access to the state apparatus. Obviously, ‘the action of the state as an institution depends . . . on the people who direct it’ (Birnbaum). These included the ‘dictator’ himself, Napoléon III, who enjoyed considerable personal power, as well as leading figures in the bureaucracy and military and influential members of the wider social elite from which they were recruited. Relationships between the Emperor and political elites as well as the internal dynamics of these groups will be one of our central concerns. The freedom of action of the head of state would vary considerably over time along with the willingness of these elites to accept his dominant position. Efforts to reinforce his authority and appeal over the heads of elites to the ‘sovereign people’ (employing such devices as the plebiscite together with electoral manipulation) enjoyed only limited success. As a result, some degree of agreement with (as well as substantial cohesion within) this political elite would appear to be a pre-requisite for effective state action. Other relevant questions include: What were the means by which its agents sought to legitimise their authority and how effective were they in penetrating society and in achieving their goals? How were the activities of state agencies perceived by the ruled and how did they respond as individuals and also as members of different social and regional groups? This process of interaction, both with the state and each other, occurred within a society which remained profoundly inegalitarian.

Inevitably, the capacity for political mobilisation varied considerably. Moreover, overt and straightforward class