Introduction
Napoleon spearheaded what many classify as the most significant historical event in the history of France i.e. the French revolution. Through his actions, the nature of France’s economic, social and political institutions changed quite dramatically. The essay shall look at possible alterations to this nation’s history if the revolution had not occurred and if Napoleon had not ceased power. It shall be argued that France is better off now because of Napoleon Bonaparte.
How Politics Would Have Been Different Without Napoleon
Thanks to Napoleon’s actions, French society acknowledged the freedoms and rights of the middle class since it marked the abolition of privileges and began respecting people’s rights. Such an analysis has often been associated with Marxist adherents who often base their analyses of political and economic historical events on the glass lens. Even without invoking Marxism, one can evidently see how urban workers’ and peasants’ lives were altered after Napoleon’s seizure of power. The revolution, therefore, had a tremendous influence on people’s lives within this European nation. In fact, many historians have often labeled the French revolution as the dawn of the world’s modern era. In present times, French men and women play a huge role in the politics of their time. They participate in votes, express political opinions and vote for whoever they desire. These were all concepts that were previously non-existent before the Napoleonic era. When King Louis VI reigned, many citizens were powerless against the aristocracy. At that time, the church and noblemen were the only entities that had a say in curving out the nation’s future. Equality was a foreign element in this nation; therefore, if Napoleon had not spearheaded the French revolution then chances are that participatory politics would have been a thing of the past in this nation. France currently boasts of being a highly democratic state; perhaps this state of affairs would not have existed if the French revolution had not taken place or if Napoleon has not ruled this nation from 1789. (Doyle 108)
The King’s decisions had becomes adversely unpopular prior to Napoleon’s reign. For instance, he had established an estates system for land distribution and this was highly unfair. Laws prevalent in this society were determined by the King and this left the masses at his mercy. He was not accountable to anyone since he earned his title as a result of his lineage and not public support. However, Napoleon changed all that when he introduced the National assembly such that France’s power did not lie in the hands of one individual. Also, because the latter body was responsible for the creation of laws, then the people of this country benefitted tremendously from new legislations. It should be noted that Napoleon’s revolutionary intentions did not necessarily remain noble after he was in power i.e. during 1804 and afterward. The major problem arose when he tried to manipulate the Assembly by selecting its members and by clinging on to power. Nonetheless, the basic structure of parliament in France as initiated during the revolution was maintained and if Napoleon had not started this, then perhaps modern-day France would have a different system of legislation.
The Napoleon Code written in 1804 was instrumental in guaranteeing several rights such as feudal, trial by jury and religious rights. The latter is perhaps one of the biggest achievements made by this ruler because initially, the Catholic Church owned a lot of lands. However, this was drastically changed upon Napoleon’s decree. If the latter ruler had not been in France’s history books then chances are that religious rulers would wield too much power and this would be oppressive to the French people.
In order to understand the implications of such a system in present times, one only has to study oppressive monarchies like Saudi Arabia’s government. This nation is one of the remaining ones that have an absolute monarch. Its King is the head of government and the rest of the country is governed by Sharia or Islamic law. The problem with such a system is that no political parties are allowed to exist and this forces the people of the latter state to contend with inefficient leadership as they cannot question it. (Kechichian 28) Also, Saudi Arabia is notorious for its human rights abuses. Women in this country are highly oppressed as Islamic law tends to disfavor their well-being. On top of this, the country does not allow the practice of other religions other than Islam thus drastically minimizing freedom of religious expression in this state. In fact, the latter country has been the subject of attention by human rights advocates who speak against its extreme punishments such as hand and leg amputations and floggings. The country even has punishments for some practices that are considered normal in other nations such as homosexuality. The country even has religious police who have been charged with the responsibility for ascertaining that all people within its borders abide by rules set out in Sunni law. From time to time, foreigners have been arrested because of their failure to comply with these ideologies. Although Saudi’s case is a bit extreme, it is likely that if Napoleon had not altered the system of government in France, then its citizens would have to contend with the absolutism that arises after granting religious groups powers. Modern-day France does not accord its religious institutions any power or privileges and these strategies were put in place at the time of the French revolution.
France may have been better off without Napoleon in terms of women’s rights. Presently, this nation’s females are highly liberated and have arisen to some of the most powerful positions in their land. However, because of Napoleon’s retrogressive rules on women, the country suffered in subsequent eras (industrialization) because it did not receive a huge political and economic input from the latter group. From time to time, Napoleon would utter derogatory statements against women. For instance, he asserted that men should control where women go and what they do as “all they were good at was knitting” (Doyle 60). He also included in his code some statements that prevented women from owning land without their husband’s consent. Even other kinds of properties were not to be sold or bought by women. Perhaps the country’s achievements would have been much greater if women were empowered. Napoleon’s views were rather short-sighted because he was not aware that making such laws was bound to trickle down to the rest of the economy.
Historical examples exist of nations that maintained systems like the one prevalent before Napoleon’s reign. Most of them have not been successful at restoring democracy and the rights and privileges of nations. For instance, in Russia, during the year 1905, Tsars was governing like absolute monarchs and most of their strategies were quite similar to the ones that existed in French before the revolution. Catherine 2 The Great had started this tradition and maintained absolutism in the way she carried out her leadership duties. There was no constitution prevalent in Russia until after the abolition of the system and there were also no legislative assemblies to enact laws. No one was allowed to question the power of the Tsar until the people of Russia got tired of this oppression by staging a revolution. If Napoleon had not existed, then it is likely that France would have gone through what Russia went through. This would delay economic and social development for the people of the former mentioned country.
Napoleon brought with him a range of changes in the education sector and without him, perhaps France’s education sector would not be as powerful. During the King’s reigns, education was a reserve for the privileged and even those who managed to get to school were taught mostly religion thus leaving them illiterate in other crucial subject areas. Perhaps if Napoleon had not existed then chances are reforms in education would have taken on a much slower pace because he declared that education would be for all. Also, since Napoleon stressed the importance of mathematics and sciences at the higher level, then if he had not ceased power, chances are that the French would not have carried out most of its inventions and discoveries that eventually took place in the period of industrialization. The latter needed a strong background in these educational areas; it explains why France’s members played a huge role in that era.
French currently boasts of historical landmarks in its infrastructural sector. When Napoleon came into power, he reorganized the country’s road networks as well as made improvements in buildings. This led to the restoration of a very positive image of Paris as a capital. Modern-day Paris is renowned for its fine architecture and its beautiful landmarks. If Napoleon had not started these constructions in that era, then France would have been developmentally disadvantaged. The inventions that were to follow in the industrial revolution were possible because the country had a sound infrastructural system. (Censer 18)
Conclusion
Napoleon was not a perfect ruler; in fact, some analysts have asserted that his rule was not that different from King Louis VI’s rule. However, after examining some facts on France, one can see why such statements are untrue. Napoleon was instrumental in instating democracy in France. This country would not enjoy an assembly, sound infrastructure, citizen participation in elections and a comprehensive constitution if Napoleon had not taken overpower. The latter leader, therefore, paved the way for the industrial revolution and laid a foundation for a strong economy in subsequent times.
Works cited
Censer, Jack. Equality, liberty and fraternity: the French Revolution. Pennsylvania: PUP, 2001
Doyle, William. A short introduction to the French revolution. Oxford: OUP, 2009
Kechichian, Joseph. Succession and power in Arabic monarchies, Boulder: Rienne publishers, 2008