Were the policies of the revolutionaries, once in power, supported by the people? |

Analysis of both the Russian and French revolution to evaluate the extent of the support and effectiveness of revolutionary policy once implemented |

When considering the term revolution, one must analyse its true meaning. Revolution implies the overthrow of government; in particular oust of a ruler or political system. There were many policies implemented in France and Russia during the revolution process. Policy refers to a programme of actions adopted by an individual, group, or government, or the set of principles on which they are based upon. The revolutionaries during the French (occurring in 1789) and Russian revolutions (occurring in 1917) implemented many policies that would inevitably change not only the face of their individual countries but also the whole world in its geographical, political and fiscal stability. Such radical change is perfectly exemplified in the policy and decision making that the revolutionaries had to sanction and control after the take over from their previously unfair and unjust political systems. The revolutionaries were divided among factions based on ideological belief. Some were left wing some were right wing, whilst other considered moderates, thus a social division of fundamental belief was created. At times some sanctions and policies did not represent the best interest of the wider populous and consequently was only to be attributed to a diminutive minority. Both revolutionary groups exterminated the previous autocratic ruling- old regimes which had discredited merit of progressive democratic thinking which previously advocated for a nobility privileged system of rule. Both revolutionary groups abolished the social class system which distinguished the church as a primary decision maker in internal fiscal politics, whilst also dealing with problems associated with war. Although some policies can be compared, some differ quite substantially. Some policies credited the people whilst others credited the revolutionary bodies themselves.

Subsequent to the abolition of the previously unfair regimes, the revolutionaries began to abominate their previous authoritative rulers (inclusive of their institutions). This is best exemplified with the policy in France; “The Declaration of the Rights of Man” (sanction on the August 26th 1789). This specific manifesto itemised a number of rights with which “all men” were held to be “able” and described as inalienable (referring to the class system). In effect, this revolutionary pronouncement nullified the divine right of kings to rule, which was the age-old basis of French government.
These inalienable rights included participation, through chosen representatives, in the making of laws; equality of all people before the law; equitable taxation; protection against loss of property through arbitrary action by the state; freedom of religion, speech, and the press; and protection against capricious arrest and punishment. At first this policy was greatly respected and celebrated by the citizens of France. However, not all particulars were specifically dealt with. The bourgeoisie were the main victors of this policy perhaps as they were the main body and populous of the National Assembly’s administration. Perhaps the quote which best exemplifies the art of action in context of the declaration is the following given by Woodrow Wilson (1856 - 1924) a former US president:

“Liberty does not consist in mere declarations of the rights of man. It consists in the translation of those declarations into definite action.”

In similar respect, the pressure exuded by the Russian people saw Tsar Nicholas the II abdicate on the 15th of March 1917, forcing a body called the ‘Provisional Government’ to embody and be in command of the people of Russia. The people supported the Provisional Government and now shifted the blame of all the previous and existing problems to the abdicated Tsar. The Bolsheviks stepped in and propagated the minds of civilians to the bourgeoisie mentality among Russia, which resulted in the subsequent victory and change of Bolshevik rule. Perhaps what best exemplifies the inability for policy and power by the Tsar is the following quote given by the Russian-born US novelist, poet, and critic Vladimir Nabokov (1899 - 1977):

“What the Tsars had never been able to achieve, namely the complete curbing of minds to the government's will, was achieved by the Bolsheviks after the main contingent of the intellectuals had escaped abroad or been destroyed.”

Comparatively speaking, it is evident to see that both Russia and France during their revolutionary period were similar. Both countries consisted of a majority populous of serf/peasant which comprised of what was then known (in France) as the Third Estate. Although the populous of peasants was extremely high they did not receive much of the say in how their country was run. Perhaps this is because they lived in rural areas and were highly uneducated. One direct comparative similarity between both societies was the value of state religion and its fabulous wealth. The Church was extremely manipulative in the way the counties were run. Thus, it is reasonable to argue that the wealthier and better off were those who engaged in politics and took part in dictating the countries future. A policy quite noble to mention would be the Reforms of August the 4th. This directly led to the Constitution of The Clergy which was sanctioned on June the 12th. Severe restrictions on the power of the Roman Catholic Church were legalized through the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. The most important of which confiscated all ecclesiastical estates. To relieve financial distress, the state was authorized to issue a new form of paper currency, called assignats, which were secured by the seized lands, constituting a tenth of France. The constitution also provided for the election of priests and bishops by the voters, for remuneration of the clergy by the state, for a clerical oath of allegiance to the state, and for the dissolution of most monastic orders.
Perhaps one discontent person of such radical church movement was Luis XVI who believed that the Church should be able to dictate its own powers. He was a highly religious man but had little sway on the people due to his highly indecisive nature of rational reasoning. It would be easy to conclude why Luis was not an exceptional power by analysing the following statement presented by Maximilien Robespierre (1758 - 1794) a French lawyer and revolutionary:

“Citizens, we are talking of a republic, and yet Louis lives! We are talking of a republic, and the person of the King still stands between us and liberty”

Such public outburst would seem to be more influential on the people of France rather than the inept and indecisive ramble of Luis who would be more interested in clockwork mechanics and engineering than running state rule. In Russia it was a similar situation (the clergy) the Church was highly influential on the Tsar and was part of the minority nobility who lead extremely luxurious lifestyles. The peasants starved and the city workers strenuously exercised their working abilities to satisfy the wants of the minority.