"I doubt that man has the sense to boil an egg" ---Georges Danton
A long time ago when I was much younger and had just started
reading books other than text books; I came across Robespierre. What
remained in my memory was the name “Incorruptible” given to him. I have rarely
heard it being attached to politicians. Yet, I didn’t have enough resources (time
and information) to find a biography of the man who appeared to be nothing less
than a mystery to me. I read about him in Glimpses of World History and A People’s
History of the World. It was a wiki article that I went through many times
to understand the character of this individual who made a vain attempt to hold
on to his ideals and principles, without any sign of compromise till his end.
Politics without compromises is hard to imagine(See this article of Isaiah Berlin). But how was it possible for a politician who rose to such
prominence during such turbulent times of great French revolution, to push
through his ideology, without caring for self. Or was he really a politician or
some eccentric man charmed by the ideal society envisioned by Rousseau? Why is
it that many still call him a blood thirsty dictator? These are the questions
that pushed me to read Fatal Purity as soon as I came across it. Also I
wanted to find the truth in the way people ridicule the utopian way of living
as impractical. The hope that intellectuals of 20th century had put
on the evolution of utopian society has been fading in recent times due to persistence of corrupt society around
us. So it is interesting to see how people two centuries ago tried to build a just
society.
Born to estranged parents, he lacked the benefit of proper parentage. Being the eldest among his siblings, he also
had the additional burden to take care of his siblings. Attracted at a very
young age to the writings of Rousseau, he used to read Rousseau’s banned
writings secretly in the college run by Jesuit missionaries(There was a legend
that he even undertook a personal visit to the ailing Rousseau). It was
this association with Rousseau, whose effect was visible in his every action
of in the future. During the course of revolution, almost all the major
initiatives of Robespierre have their roots in the ideas espoused by The Social
Contract.
A man of high principle, unconstrained by the need for pursuing
self-interest and self-preservation, he always believed, “A man of high
principle will be ready to sacrifice to the state his wealth, his life, his
very nature - everything, indeed, except his honour". He envisaged a close
connection between politics and morality. Indeed he always believed that an
ideal society is formed only by association of virtuous citizens. Like Rousseau, he laid great emphasis on virtue, as a guiding principle for a happy
life. He was intrigued by the idea of a virtuous man, who stands alone supported
only by his conscience. He always tried to see himself as one such man. He
believed in what Rousseau said, "…the laws of god need no other sanction
than the natural consequences he himself has attached to, the audacity of those
who infringe them and the fidelity of those who respect them. Virtue produces
happiness as sun produces light. Crime results in unhappiness as certainly as
filthy issue from the heart of corruption.”
Robespierre advocated freedom of conscience and unlimited
freedom of press. In times, when, even in contemporary democracies, proscribing
and banning books was common, this was unprecedented. His views on why a public
servant should not be deterred by constraints put by unlimited press freedom
are interesting, and are relevant today when higher level of accountability and
transparency is demanded from public servants. Thus he says, “Incorruptible
men, who have no other passion besides the wellbeing and glory of their
country, do not dread the public expression of the sentiments of their fellow
citizens. They know only too well that it is not easy to lose their esteem,
when one can counter calumny with an irreproachable life and proof of disinterested
zeal; if they are sometimes victims of a passing persecution, this is, for
them, the badge of their glory, the brilliant testimony of their virtue; they
rest assured with gentle confidence in the suffering of a pure conscience and
the force of truth which will soon reconcile them with their fellow citizens”.
He was alone in advocating universal adult franchise in the
first National assembly. Even the so called progressive revolutionaries of the
time were unwilling to trust the poor and underprivileged people to give them
the right to vote. His faith in people was immense, again an idea directly
drawn from Rousseau’s social contract. To quote Rousseau, “It is the people
that are good, patient and generous; the people ask for nothing but peace, justice
and the right to live”. Thus Robespierre says, “It is not enough to have
overturned the throne: our concern is to erect upon his remains holy equality
and the imprescriptible Rights of Man. It is not in the empty word itself that
a republic consists, but in the character of the citizens. The soul of a
republic is vertu – that is
love of la patrie, and the
high-minded devotion that resolves all private interests into the general
interest. The enemies of the republic are those dastardly egoists, those
ambitious and corrupt men. You have hunted down kings, but have you hunted out
the vices that their deadly domination has engendered among you? Taken
together, you are the most generous, the most moral of all peoples…but a people
that nurtures within itself a multitude of adroit rogues and political
charlatans, skilled at usurpation and the betrayal of trust.”
Contrary to the bloodthirsty dictator as some call him, he
actually spoke against death penalty before and even during the initial years
of the revolution. As the author (of this book Fatal Purity) says, “He opposed
it[death penalty] for two reasons: first its injustice; second its
ineffectiveness as a deterrent. He thought it unjust because society could not
have rights that individuals lacked, and individuals only have the right to
kill in cases of self-defense”. But the society, as Robespierre himself says, “..which
is capable of holding the culprit in chains, judge him peacefully, and use its
limitless authority to chastise him and make it impossible for him to make
himself feared in the future”, has no such right to kill a person. Robespierre
further adds, “A conqueror that butchers his captives is called barbaric.
Someone who butchers a perverse child that he could disarm and punish seems
monstrous”. It was not deterrent because, “according to him, pride was the most
dominant of human passions, stronger even than the desire to live”. Hence death
penalty can hardly be a deterrent to a good citizen.
It is interesting to note that Robespierre was not an atheist
(The concept of civil faith as a religion managed by state, as propounded first
by Rousseau and later by other revolutionaries like Robespierre is in itself of
remarkable interest today, especially when the Reason failed to occupy the vacuum
created by the retreat of traditional religions). He recognized the immense
social power of religion. He tried to use God as a tool to promote virtue in
the society. He supported some kind of state managed civil religion. He quoted
Voltaire, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to create one”, in his
speeches in National convention. While defending his conception of state
managed religion, he said, “The French people pins its faith, not on its
priests, nor on any superstition, or any ceremony, but on worship of such –
that is to say, upon the conception of an incomprehensible power, which is at
once a source of confidence to the virtuous and of terror to the criminal”. While argueing against atheism as state policy,
as was proposed by some Jacobins, he said, “Who commissioned you to announce to
the people that God does not exist?? Oh
you, who are so passionate about this arid doctrine, yet have no passion for
your country! How does it help a man if you persuade him that blind force presides
over his destiny and strikes at random, now at virtuous, now at criminal? Does
it help him to believe that his soul is nothing but a thin vapor that is
dissipated at the mouth of the tomb? Will the idea of annihilation inspire him
with purer and higher sentiments than that of immortality? Will it give him
more respect for himself than his fellow men, more devotion to his country, a
braver face against tyranny, or a deeper disdain either for pleasure or for
death? No…the dying breath of those poor people who die beneath the blows of an
assassin is an appeal to the eternal justice! The innocent on the scaffold make
tyrants pale in their triumphal chariots: would they have such ascendency if
the tomb made the oppressor and the oppressed equal?...If the existence of god
and the immortality of the soul were nothing but dreams, they would still be
the most beautiful conceptions of the human spirit”.
More important is his advocacy of use of reason as the guiding
principle to solve all the problems of the society. This conception also has
its roots in the writings of age of enlightenment and particularly Rousseau’s
social contract. To quote Robespierre, “It is not merely patriotism, or enthusiasm, or
an ingrained love of freedom that sustains our efforts; it is reason, which
will make the republic immortal; where reason reigns, the people is sovereign;
and such an empire is indestructible”. When members of national convention
accused him of tyranny, Danton got up and said, “M. Robespierre has never used
any tyranny in this house, unless it is the tyranny of the reason”. But it is
unfortunate to see that even after more than two centuries after the revolution
which tried in vain to install ‘reason’ as guiding principle for the realization
of a just society, most people still believe in regressive(and dumb) ideas
like Astrology, Numerology etc. More importantly, reason failed to fill the
vacuum created by the retreat of religion and there seems to be some kind of
de-socialization, where members of society no longer respect their responsibility
towards the society.
There is a similarity between Gandhi and him, in their
passionate adherence to their principles and what they believed in, without compromise,
and use of reason as guiding principle in all their decisions. But there is a
fundamental difference between them. It is the same difference that Gandhi came
to be identified with. Perhaps it is the same difference that made Gandhi
successful in realizing Swaraj, and that killed Robespierre, before the establishment
the ideal society envisioned by Rousseau. Robespierre believed that ends
justify means, while Gandhi never did so. Robespierre, who, alone, vehemently
opposed death penalty during the initial years of revolution, later supported
organized state terror as a means to suppress aristocrats and the enemies of
revolution. Thus he became part of the age of terror with which (with lot of
injustice to him), the world came to identify him. Thus he claimed, “If the
basis of popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of
revolution is both virtue and terror – virtue without which terror is
disastrous, and terror, without which virtue has no power…Terror is merely
justice, prompt, severe, and inflexible, It is therefore an emanation of
virtue, and results from the application of democracy to the most pressing
needs of the country”. As the author of Fatal Purity adds, “In the hands of
despots, Robespierre argued, terror was a weapon of oppression. But terror
wielded by virtue was the refuge of the poor”. Thus Robespierre didn’t hesitate
in using most repressive means to justify the ends he tried to achieve, to
establish his vision of France, “…a prim society of patriotic, uncorrupted,
serious equals. …and there would be only innocent pleasures, no frivolous
distractions, no debauchery. No one would value money above honour, and honour
itself would be defined as personal integrity just as Rousseau said it should
be long before 1789”. Lot of ideological transformation took place between the
days he rejected death penalty and the days when he justified state terror,
which I do not wish to dwell on right now.
Finally, for a person like me, who holds Rousseau’s Social
Contract in high regard, Robespierre’s idea of his nation is very inspiring. He
says, “In our country we want to substitute morality for egoism, honesty for
love of honour, principles for conventions, duties for decorum, the empire of
reason for the tyranny of fashion, the fear of vice for the dread of
unimportance; we want to substitute pride for insolence, magnanimity for
vanity, the love of glory for the love of gold: we want to replace good company
by good character, intrigue by merit,
wit by genius, brilliance by truth, dull debauchery by the charm of happiness.
For the pettiness of the so-called great we would substitute the full stature
of humanity; in place of an easy going, frivolous and discontented people we
would create one that is happy, powerful and stout hearted, and replace the
vices and follies of monarchy by the virtues and astounding achievements of the
republic”.
The questions the occupied my mind before reading the book, some
of which I mentioned in the first paragraph are still unanswered. But I got a
new perspective to look at things after reading the book. I still do not know
if it is right to be uncompromising in following what one believes in. But I at
least know that it is possible, and it needs strength, a strength that the weak
cannot afford, and that often takes one to tomb as Saint-Just a close associate
of Robespierre and also a very interesting personality of revolution who
achieved so much in just 26 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment