A truly revolutionary document for its time

For its time and place, late 18th century France, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (August 26, 1789) was truly a revolutionary document. This declaration was a programmatic statement with strong classically liberal influences that set forth basic ideas such as citizenship, sovereignty, nationhood, and rights in just seventeen provisions. The revolutionary nature of the declaration lies in those principles, which are irreconcilable with those of an absolute monarchy such as the French Ancien Regime. In the process, it established the founding principles of the modern French nation-state. Broadly and bluntly speaking, then, the declaration as a whole was revolutionary. Historical context matters, as Chrétien-François de Lamoignon (1735-1789) indicates in his speech on the principles of the French monarchy.

According to extracts from Lamoignon’s speech, absolutism and divine right are the guiding principles for the monarchy. The first principle, “sovereign power in his kingdom belongs to the king alone,” is indicative of absolute monarchy. Divine right, which justified absolute rule, is evident in the second principle, “that he is accountable only to God for the exercise of supreme power.” Lamoignon also touches on the “indissoluble” link between king and nation. All of these notions characterize the nature of the French monarchy – an absolutist regime that relied on theological justifications for its existence and which had a corporatist perspective of the country and society (as expressed, furthermore, by the First, Second, and Third Estates). The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen overturned all of these ideas.

The declaration’s first article says, “Men are born free and remain equal in rights. Social distinctions may only be based on common usefulness”. The words “free”, “equal”, and “rights” are important -- they establish the idea of citizenship in article one. Articles two, four, and five expand on that idea, in which rights include “liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression” (article two); “liberty consists in being able to do anything that is not harmful to others”, therefore allowing all citizens to exercise their rights (article four); and “the law has the right only to forbid acts that are harmful to society”, which in a way echoes the fourth article given that such legal prohibitions are meant to ensure the rights of all citizens and “society” consists of fellow citizens (article five). Furthermore, articles three and six elaborate on the nature of law in revolutionary France. Article six says that “the law is the expression of the general will”. The “general will” is that of all the citizens who make up the nation. Here, article three comes in, “The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation”. These two articles point to a collective of free and equal individuals known as citizens. That collective was to develop and live by a legal system that respects and enforces citizens’ rights.

This conception of law appears to be in keeping with democratic and republican notions of government, which makes articles twelve, thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen relevant. Article twelve says, “Guaranteeing the rights of man and the citizen necessitates a public force: thus this force is instituted for the benefit of all, and not for the individual use of those to whom it is entrusted”. That public force is a government, a state, which recognizes citizenship and rights and enforces a system of laws. Articles thirteen, fourteen and fifteen outline the state’s need for taxation in order to operate and the right of citizens to audit the use of that tax money, thus exemplifying state accountability to citizens and the partial realization of democratic and republican ideas.

The declaration’s articles represent ideas of citizenship, rights, and national sovereignty. These concepts are also intimately related foundations. The result is a framework for a nation-state beholden to the collective will and rights of its citizens, which exists in stark contrast with the idea of political power in the hands of a monarch with divine approval. Given the historical context, the former as represented by the declaration proved to be a revolutionary proposition. As Professor Peter McPhee notes in video clip 2.5, 8:58 to 9:06, it was the “blueprint for a new society, a new polity”.