Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794) is one of the most famous figures of the French Revolution, and probably the most controversial. On the one hand, a “black legend” makes him the Machiavellian architect of the Terror, or even the creator of totalitarianism. On the other hand, a “golden legend” presents him as the Incorruptible, an eminent defender of the people and of equality, an innocent victim of the Thermidorian counter-revolution.
Beyond these simplistic discourses, the historiographical renewal of the 21st centurye century takes a more complex look at the man, his thought and his action. A fresh study of Robespierre’s philosophy allows us to discover a robust theory, particularly on the subject of the sovereignty of the people and democratic republicanism. The political status of the people challenges us more than ever in the light of the much-maligned populism, as distrust of our institutions deepens, does Robespierre’s thought still have something to offer us?
“The lawyer of the poor”
Robespierre was born in 1758 in the city of Arras, capital of Artois (north-east France). Coming from the provincial bourgeoisie, he proved to be a brilliant student, which allowed him to become a scholarship student at the prestigious Lycée Louis-le-Grand in Paris (1769-1781). Having become a lawyer, he returned to practice in his native region, where he acquired a reputation as a progressive man of letters. The lawyer from Arras became the defender of science against obscurantism, the herald of the poor and the victims of the arbitrariness of the Ancien Régime.
With this reputation, Robespierre was elected deputy of the Third Estate in the spring of 1789 and went to Paris to participate in the Estates General. He worked on drafting the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, before being at the heart of the debates on the new constitution which would end in September 1791. A member of the Jacobin Club, he was part of its democratic tendency, supporting the rights of the people and the freedom of citizens. He rejected bicameralism, for fear of undermining the legislative power which embodied popular sovereignty, just as he rejected the king’s veto.
He is also the one who proposed the motto “Liberty, equality, fraternity” in his Speech on the organization of the national guards (1790). His policy was then centered on the political affirmation of the French people and the establishment of an equitable society, freed from traditional constraints. The fall of the monarchy (August 10, 1792) led him to clarify his conception of popular sovereignty and its translation into a democratic Republic.
The people, true sovereign of the nation
Robespierre’s notion of people is polysemic. In a general sense, it refers to the population that inhabits French territory. In a second sense, it evokes the working population, therefore the third estate only. Finally, the idea of people also speaks of the poor or the low-income earners. That said, the most effective notion to define the people according to Robespierre seems to be that of “citizens fulfilling a function of social utility”.
This people represents the true essence of the nation of which it is the authentic sovereign. It is not mystical or disembodied, but is composed of workers, peasants, men and women who participate in the economic, social and political life of the country. This definition encourages Robespierre to promote a broad and non-ethnic citizenship, as well as a constant political activity of citizens.
The centrality of popular sovereignty entails several consequences. First, it is clear that it cannot be delegated: it intrinsically belongs to the people. The government and institutions are tools that the people give themselves at their own service. The legislative power is the only true power, since it embodies the general will.
For Robespierre, legislators are the representatives of the people, simple civil servants at the service of the citizens, who can revoke them and to whom they are accountable. This approach is interesting insofar as it implies a special responsibility of the representatives, that of respecting what they were elected for, at the risk of being dismissed, or even sued. On the other hand, the translation of this demanding conception of popular sovereignty into a functional republic is not self-evident.
The Rise of a Democratic Republic
In May 1793, Robespierre stated: “The first object of any constitution must be to defend public and individual liberty against the government itself.” Far from opposing individual rights to a centralized government, Robespierre conceived of a solidarity between them. The rights of citizens allow them to exercise more certainly their sovereignty which is expressed in a strong government, while elected officials and civil servants remain under control.
This configuration requires sustained participation of citizens in public affairs, but guarantees their effective power. It implies a republican model, based on the legislative power, of which the executive and the judiciary are appendages. It is also necessary to provide spaces for intervention for citizens at the local, regional and national levels. Popular counter-powers, such as political clubs, are encouraged, as well as the intervention of the people with the Convention, in particular by petitions presented in person.
In addition, equality before the law and fair participation in the affairs of the city must be guaranteed. First, a dignified and comfortable existence must be ensured for all citizens. Then, excessive wealth, which is unproductive and undemocratic, must be restricted. This economic thinking is part of an old republican model that values the “happy medium” and considers that a healthy life, without excess wealth and without indolence, promotes political virtue.
In any case, the universal right to exist supersedes private property, forcing the State, which claims to be moral, to control and redistribute excess wealth. These principles are expressed in the Constitution of 1793, “the most democratic” in the history of France. The text also introduces new democratic processes and a right to resistance. Once these foundations have been stated, the question of their implementation remains open.
Robespierre was, during the last year of his life, one of the main leaders of the revolutionary government, a state of exception that aimed to save the republic from foreign invasions and royalist insurrections. This period was marked by intense violence, with external war mixing with civil war and state repression. In these circumstances, Robespierre was the victim of a plot that sought, through his execution, a de-escalation. His suppression, on July 28, 1794, led to a lull, but also to a crumbling of democratic ideas for a prolonged period.
Two centuries after his death, what remains of Robespierre’s ideas, if not his actions? At a time when the working classes are gripped by cynicism, we must rethink the democratic conditions for expressing popular sovereignty. We must allow citizens to determine the institutional forms that suit them and open up decision-making spaces. The accountability and revocability of elected officials seem necessary for a functional democracy. In addition, we must review the distribution of wealth in an egalitarian perspective, beyond the artificial idea of harmony between social classes. The effective control of the vast majority over their destiny depends on it.