lkit DECAY OF THE REPUBLICAN IDEAL.
AVERY remarkable change has passed, and is pass- ing, over political opinion throughout Europe. All through the "forties," "fifties," and " sixties " the ideal of genuine Liberals, the system towards which they looked with hope and a, certain enthusiasm as of the youthful, was Republicanism. If only the Monarchies would take themselves away, and men organised under a wide system of suffrage would govern themselves through themselves, then everything would go right, war would cease, oppres- sion would be regarded as loathsome, and the economic miseries of the multitude, which were as clearly perceived then as they are now, would gradually be removed. Those who are most interested in good government, it was said, if once in power, would almost by unconscious action secure good government. There was, too, a prevailing notion, especially among the cultivated Liberals, that Republic- anism was the noblest form of government, that there was something base in allowing privilege, or admitting that the mass of mankind were not only incompetent to rule themselves, but incompetent except when favoured by infrequent accidents to select wise rulers. Those impres- sions produced in 1848 a dozen abortive revolutions, and in 1871, when in France a great defeat had shattered the pres- tige of a dynasty, a successful one, and they regulated for more than a generation the aspirations of all who, whether from misery or from thoughtfulness, are unable not to aspire. At present, though they are not dead, and indeed cannot die, they have been profoundly modified, and may almost be pronounced in a state of catalepsy. The universal arming of the peoples, which produces a sort of natural demand for a Commander-in-Chief; the rise in Germany of a strong Monarchy, ruled in succession by two most interesting individuals, Bismarck and William II.; the remarkable diffusion in Austria of belief in the Grand Referee; the usefulness of the Monarchy in Italy as a preventative of disunion ; the steady growth in power and visibility of autocratic Russia ; and the immense popularity of the British Queen,—have all tended to revive, both in the masses and the reflective, the belief that there is a force in Monarchy which neither logic nor ridicule suffices to disprove. However indefensible by argument, the insti- tution has succeeded, and in the midst of so many failures an institution which succeeds always attracts to itself something indistinguishable from loyalty. A tolerance has grown up for even the aberrations of Monarchy, and if it shows itself oppressive or ridiculous there is more regret than scorn.
At the same time, to strengthen this feeling there has been a decay of respect for Republicanism in two ways.
It has not appeared either in Europe or the New World any nobler than Monarchy. France since it became a Republic has repeatedly fallen into the hands of inferior jobbers, who have not conquered, have not founded, and have not in any way whatever proved leaders of mankind. They have not even kept clear of the dirtiest pecuniary corruption. They have not made their country as strong as her conqueror, and of late they have shown a disposition to coquet with Pretorianism ; that is, in the opinion of all Liberals, to go further backward than even reactionaries wish to go. There is certainly nothing noble in the present position of France. America, it is true, has been more attrac- tive, for in her great Civil War she developed magnificent patriotism and endurance, she produced in Lincoln an almost ideal Republican chief, and her astounding increase in strength has removed from the general mind the im- pression that Republics are always weak. The effect of her example has, however, been seriously weakened by the corruption rampant in her great cities, by the extreme slowness with which she produces great men, and by her almost entire failure to solve the greater economic problems.
For there can hardly be a doubt, we imagine, that one main cause of the popularity of the Republican ideal in the last generation was a belief, not always formulated but always operative, that Republican institutions would solve the economic problem, would produce comparative equality of conditions, would prohibit economic misery, and would immensely facilitate the diffusion of property. Taxation, it was thought, would be lighter, dangerous accumulations of wealth would be infrequent, and the mass of mankind, who, instinct tells us, must always labour if the earth is to yield her increase, would perform that labour under conditions favourable at once to happiness and to in- tellectual progress. The recent experience of white man- kind has not verified those anticipations. The Americans, who seemed. for a, moment likely to realise them, have turned aside to try a colossal experiment in individualism, which, whatever its ultimate result, has for the present increased the disparities of fortune to an amazing degree, so that there are now individuals with the income of ten thousand prosperous workmen, that the opportunities and. careers open to all men have been seriously diminished— through Trusts—and that there is danger of a whole community consisting only of capitalists and those to whom they give orders. That development occur- ring under Republicanism, and being concurrent with an astonishing development of the passion of pity, has begun to shock the reflective, while it has so struck the imagination of the European masses that it has seriously increased the spread of Socialism, which seeks happiness not through the freedom which is the root of Republicanism, but through excessively strict combination, in which the freedom of the individual is sacrificed to the hope of wellbeing for all. The example of France again is, in the economic respect, no counterpoise to that of America. She does not, indeed, produce crops of millionaires or organise gigantic Trusts, but she has made of money an unprecedentedly strong solvent of equality. Her upper class were never so luxurious, her lower class never since the Revolution so heavily taxed or so conscious of economic inequalities. The Republic, in fact, has solved no economic problem ; while it is probable that owing to the increase in the thirst for physical comfort the sense of economic misery is more Instead of less acutely felt. In France also, therefore, men are turning from questions of self-government to consider plans which are all, whatever their details, variants of Collectivism, to be carried out only by a rigid combination fatal to the Republican ideal.
The immediate consequence of these disappointments in the hopes of men has been a decay of confidence in Republicanism, and an increased toleration for Monarchy even in its more decided form. It is curious that it should be so, for Republicanism is consistent with a hundred methods of government, and the great States have only tried two, one in which the Executive is always responsible to the delegates of the people, and one in which responsibility is only exacted at fixed intervals, while the defects of Republicanism do not prove the absence of defects in Monarchy. The human race, how- ever, so inventive in the domain of creeds, has never shown itself inventive as regards methods of government, and at present displays a singular shrinking from any method which has once failed, even though it succeeded for long periods. It seems unable or unwilling even to think of any plans of government except confiding the Executive to a hereditary Monarch or confiding all practical power to representatives of the people. Limited Monarchy has never been really tried except in England. Honest elective Monarchy has never been tried at all, for the Monarch in Poland was not elected by the people. Senatorial government—that is, practically a self-renewing Cabinet—is never so much as mentioned though once so splendidly successful. Democrats still shrink from, though they occasionally discuss, pure democracy—that is, a Referendum for every decree, taken once a month— while Cabinet government, though it shows symptoms of becoming a very real and strong method of ruling, has never been organised or acknowledged as an adopted system. The peoples consider only Monarchy and Repub- licanism, and, for the reasons we have indicated, the favour of Republicanism declines, with a grave result, we fear, in an increase of political hopelessness, and therefore a decrease of political energy.
Previous page
