this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
10 points (91.7% liked)
AskHistorians
1256 readers
37 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Of what Nation? You know that there are a few other countries outside your own and that they all have their own constitution? ;)
France, my own country, in the second article of its 'Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme' (1789) reads « Le but de toute association politique est la conservation des droits naturels et imprescriptibles de l’homme. Ces droits sont la liberté, la propriété, la sûreté et la résistance à l’oppression. » Which roughly translates as : “The aim of any political association is the preservation of the natural and imperscriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.”
Not only does this text states what the purpose of any legit government must be but in doing so it also let it be understood that any government who is not actively working at protecting those fundamental rights stops being legitimate (and then it becomes the political/moral duty of citizens to oppose it).
The text is not mentioning violently overthrowing said government nor is it targeting specifically tyranny or monarchy (even though it was written against them) but it's making it a legit reason to stop obeying and to oppose any form of government that fails to protect those fundamentals rights… without fixing any 'acceptable' limit to the form said opposition could take.
And said limit can and were quite... high, back then. That is not something people like to consider nowadays but violence was part of the Republic’s DNA since its inception. Not even mentioning our own national enthem (la marseillaise) which is everything but friendly to whoever dares threatening our Nation, the most well known symbol is the beheading of the king and queen (and many other aristocrats) and then, in the name of its own safety, the new born French Republic turned itself into a literal mass murderer, culminating in what was later described as 'The Terror' (1792-94) during which, in the name of its own preservation, the Nation (that was indeed directly threatened by European monarchies and by internal dissents) massacred their own population (and also its own leaders). That Terror was a nightmarish blood bath, but I don't think the republic would have stand much of a chance without at least some of that extreme violence.
Violence set aside, I sincerely think France’s 'Déclaration’ is a wonderful text that is more than worth reading and meditating over and over again, today probably more than ever: La déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen , plus its official English translation: The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
I suppose your from the USA? Then, your own Declaration of Independence (1776) states that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (protecting the people's fundamental rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
Please do note that they take a stance against 'any Form of Government' that is abusing its power and stops respecting people’s fundamental rights, not just against monarchy or tyranny.
Sure, back then they wrote it against what they considered abuses from the British monarchy but those people were smart enough to make sure that this essential text could be used against abuse of power from any form of government... including democratic ones.
Depending how one interprets it, this could also be one of the reasons why that young USA republic has deemed it necessary to have the 2nd Amendments (1791) say that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But I will let US people discuss that particular US notion. Still, as a foreigner I consider it another key text that is worth reading over and over again:
It's also worth remembering those people were highly educated and valued education in the citizen. As far as I can tell, as a mere foreigner, the US constitution does not talk about education of the people but one just needs to refer to Jefferson’s, Adams or Franklin’s own work (edit: and the work of some of their contemporaries) to brush aside any doubt: education and culture was considered a way to protect the republic from any ‘elite’ taking hold of it.
Education is something whose essential importance in protecting and strengthening our democracies we may have dangerously neglected for the last few decades. Here in France too, btw.
I guess that explains why the French protest so much compared to somewhere like Canada.
Disclaimer: I hope you won't mind that lengthy reply, if you do by all means feel free to not read it. It's just something I consider both fascinating and essential, more than worth sharing and discussing ;)
It's also that France historically has always been both a very self-aware Nation/population (grossly simplified: the Francs, since Clovis approx in the year 500) and a very diversified/rich and oftentimes very conflicting collection of smaller groups of very different populations, with very different cultural backgrounds and values. Groups whose interests and objectives predictably were not the same.
Half seriously, but still half seriously, I would say one of the best representation of that French 'type' and how deeply it is is part of our ‘nature’ to constantly be fighting one another, can be found in the ‘Asterix’ series of comics. I’m only considering the original Uderzo/Gosciny collaboration here, as I have very little interest for the contemporary remakes.
I don’t think there is a single album in which there is not at least one strip showing some kind of violent dispute happening in-between the villagers themselves while the country is being invaded and their own village is being besieged by the powerful Roman armies. More often than not they’re fighting one another about absurd things, like the (lack of) freshness of the fish sold by the fish seller or the (lack of) quality of the music of the bard or some other non-sense like that. But at the same time, there is not a single album that doesn’t end up in a joyful reconciliation, around a banquet, celebrating our unity through our differences (which I always considered the true magical potion, to be honest) after they managed to teach a good lesson to the all mighty Roman armies if not directly to Caesar himself. One album after the other.
But like often, looking history is the most fascinating way to realize how nuanced (and rich) realty is.
Before France became the republic it has been since 1789, it was a monarchy. I would think most people with basic notions regarding France’s history and its monarchy will know that monarchy for two things: the ‘absolute monarchy’ or the ‘divine right monarchy’ (an undisputed king that has been put where he is by god himself) and ‘Louis XIV, le roi soleil’, the ‘sun king’ and his Versailles palace. This king being the legit the epitome of the ‘absolute monarchy’.
That would be correct but at the same time that would also give zero idea of the incredible variety, and the constant internal fights and changes that were going on.
At the very beginning of the kingdom of France, sometime after the collapse of the Carolingian empire and the troubled times that followed, the first ‘king of France’, Hugues Capet was… elected. So much for the 'divine right monarch' ;)
He was one of the aristocrats owning the lands of the various provinces of what was not yet looking anything like what the country of France would one day look like. And if Hugues Capet himself was already powerful he was far from being the most powerful aristocrat, his fief was not even the largest one back then (the amount of land owned back then was the equivalent of the amount of dollars and/or aircraft carriers a country owns today). It’s only slowly (it took centuries) through smart alliances, manipulations, treason and diplomacy, constantly going on (with their unavoidable setbacks) that this first election led to the undisputed powerful divine right monarch that Louis XIV incarnated centuries later. Undoubtedly a very powerful monarchy but one that also very collapsed very quickly after Louis XIV passed away: he died in 1715 and it is in 1789 (less than 75 years later) that France declared itself a republic (and in 1793, they beheaded his grandson, the last king of France).
The idea is that France was a very diversified and complex nation, whose impressive monarchy was built upon constant compromises and constant disputes.
Nowadays, this variety tends to fade away as there have have been a lot of work done to… standardize the population through a Nation-wide standardized education system. But even there, it took a lot of time: Richelieu created L’Académie Française in... 1635, as a mean to impose the French language to the very many regions and provinces who insisted on speaking their own regional languages and in doing so were putting themselves out of reach from the central monarchist power (and were claiming their right to self-determine). It also had to standardize units and measures for the same reason.
If today even the mere knowledge of that very rich and conflicting past tends to vanish, as history is barely being taught anymore nowadays to the general public and to our kids, and the little that is still being taught is being done in overly simplistic terms, like really it’s frightening. No matter what, French people still have that natural tendency to not back away from constant arguing, it’s what we are. I sincerely doubt any amount of ‘standardized reeducation’ will be able to change that.