THE ACTION OF GOVERNMENTS IN REVOLUTIONS
1.The feeble resistance of Governments in time of Revolution.
Many modern nations--France, Spain, Italy, Austria, Poland, Japan, Turkey, Portugal, &c.--have known revolutions within the last century.These were usually characterised by their instantaneous quality and the facility with which the governments attacked were overthrown.
The instantaneous nature of these revolutions is explained by the rapidity of mental contagion due to modern methods of publicity.
The slight resistance of the governments attacked is more surprising.It implies a total inability to comprehend and foresee created by a blind confidence in their own strength.
The facility with which governments fall is not however a new phenomenon.It has been proved more than once, not only in autocratic systems, which are always overturned by palace conspiracies, but also in governments perfectly instructed in the state of public opinion by the press and their own agents.
Among these instantaneous downfalls one of the most striking was that which followed the Ordinances of Charles X.This monarch was, as we know, overthrown in four days.His minister Polignac had taken no measures of defence, and the king was so confident of the tranquillity of Paris that he had gone hunting.
The army was not in the least hostile, as in the reign of Louis XVI., but the troops, badly officered, disbanded before the attacks of a few insurgents.
The overthrow of Louis-Philippe was still more typical, since it did not result from any arbitrary action on the part of the sovereign.This monarch was not surrounded by the hatred which finally surrounded Charles X., and his fall was the result of an insignificant riot which could easily have been repressed.
Historians, who can hardly comprehend how a solidly constituted government, supported by an imposing army, can be overthrown by a few rioters, naturally attributed the fall of Louis-Philippe to deep-seated causes.In reality the incapacity of the generals entrusted with his defence was the real cause of his fall.
This case is one of the most instructive that could be cited, and is worthy of a moment's consideration.It has been perfectly investigated by General Bonnal, in the light of the notes of an eye-witness, General Elchingen.Thirty-six thousand troops were then in Paris, but the weakness and incapacity of their officers made it impossible to use them.Contradictory orders were given, and finally the troops were forbidden to fire on the people, who, moreover--and nothing could have been more dangerous--were permitted to mingle with the troops.The riot succeeded without fighting and forced the king to abdicate.
Applying to the preceding case our knowledge of the psychology of crowds, General Bonnal shows how easily the riot which overthrew Louis-Philippe could have been controlled.He proves, notably, that if the commanding officers had not completely lost their heads quite a small body of troops could have prevented the insurgents from invading the Chamber of Deputies.This last, composed of monarchists, would certainly have proclaimed the Count of Paris under the regency of his mother.
Similar phenomena were observable in the revolutions of Spain and Portugal.
These facts show the role of petty accessory circumstances in great events, and prove that one must not speak too readily of the general laws of history.Without the riot which overthrew Louis-Philippe, we should probably have seen neither the Republic of 1848, nor the Second Empire, nor Sedan, nor the invasion, nor the loss of Alsace.
In the revolutions of which I have just been speaking the army was of no assistance to the government, but did not turn against it.It sometimes happens otherwise.It is often the army which effects the revolution, as in Turkey and Portugal.The innumerable revolutions of the Latin republics of America are effected by the army.
When a revolution is effected by an army the new rulers naturally fall under its domination.I have already recalled the fact that this was the case at the end of the Roman Empire, when the emperors were made and unmade by the soldiery.
The same thing has sometimes been witnessed in modern times.The following extract from a newspaper, with reference to the Greek revolution, shows what becomes of a government dominated by its army:--``One day it was announced that eighty officers of the navy would send in their resignations if the government did not dismiss the leaders of whom they complained.Another time it was the agricultural labourers on a farm (metairie) belonging to the Crown Prince who demanded the partition of the soil among them.
The navy protested against the promotion promised to Colonel Zorbas.Colonel Zorbas, after a week of discussion with Lieutenant Typaldos, treated with the President of the Council as one power with another.During this time the Federation of the corporations abused the officers of the navy.A deputy demanded that these officers and their families should be treated as brigands.When Commander Miaoulis fired on the rebels, the sailors, who first of all had obeyed Typaldos, returned to duty.
This is no longer the harmonious Greece of Pericles and Themistocles.It is a hideous camp of Agramant.''
A revolution cannot be effected without the assistance or at least the neutrality of the army, but it often happens that the movement commences without it.This was the case with the revolutions of 1830 and 1848, and that of 1870, which overthrew the Empire after the humiliation of France by the surrender of Sedan.
The majority of revolutions take place in the capitals, and by means of contagion spread through the country; but this is not a constant rule.We know that during the French Revolution La Vendee, Brittany, and the Midi revolted spontaneously against Paris.
2.How the resistance of Governments may overcome Revolution.
