What form of Governemnt would have been most beneficial to France in the late 1800s?

[wolf_brother]

What, a continued (or reborn) Empire isn't an option?

[scholar]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

What, a continued (or reborn) Empire isn't an option?

Because the empire is still a monarchy.

Exactly why i thin that a monarchy (constitutionnal or not) would be less stable than a republic.

One that doesn't match facts: republics are by definition unstable, ranging from moderate instability and severe instability depending on elections and cultural change. A monarch actually provides stability. A monarch of a specific dynasty would more or less drastically reduce the total number of serious pretenders to the throne and make the political stage far more stable in regards to monarchical pretender parties [as well as the entire French political arena]. Given that it is a constitutional one with at the very least heavily limited influence over the legislature all the hallmarks of a republic are present there as well.

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by scholar

Because the empire is still a monarchy.

Tell that to the Bourbons or Orléanists - or hell to the Bonapartists!

[KnightofTempest]

An Empire would be a great system of government but, and here's the kicker, the man at the top has to be good at being an Emperor! In an Empire things get done quickly and decisively, nothing gets bogged down in subcomitte or sunk by bipartisan politics. The problem is once again the Emperor must be at least competent to pull this off. Sadly most Emperors can't pull this off, and the ones that do are likely to leave their heirs entitled, petty, and non competent, the likliehood of this goes by with each successive generation of Emperors.
If I were going to pull this off, I'd have an Empire under a competent ruler immediately reform into a constitutional monarchy upon the Emperor's death, possibly with a clause in the constitution like the one in the Roman Constitution about tyrants, but with the stipulation added that once said tyrant dies the power reverts back to the assembly.

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

Originally Posted by Imladrik

The problem that you wil have with a parliementary monarchy established in 1871 is that the républicains will have the power in the parliament no matter what in the first election in 1876 (as they did OTL). And the orléanist got the constitution they wanted in 1875 just with a president elected for 7 years instead of a King. So the 16 mai crisis will still happen as there is a problem in the constitutional arrangement of the orléanist : the governement is responsible to the chambers of deputies AND the president (in the case of a Monarchy, the king). So the crisis will happen sooner or later and then the moanrchy will fall, especially after the Napoléonians get back some power (so the orléanists/légitimist) get less power.

True, but Mac-Mahon was a legitimist and a stubborn one at that. The Count of Paris was a firm believer in popular sovereignty, and I don't see him trying to sack ministers who were republicans over political differences. If the restoration was done in a quick manner, and not dragged out for several years which caused people like Thiers to become Opportunist Republicans, then wouldn't the Republican Opposition be diminished to generally the Left Republicans?

[Mr.J]

"Theocratic" dictatorship under the Cult of Reason. :P

[Laplace's Demon]

You know, couldn't avoiding the July Monarchy's experiment with only enfranchising a narrow, middle-class section of the country help to prevent leftist-republicanism from being such a big thing later on?

You could potentially take a modicum of wind out of socialism in France by preventing the popular overthrow of the Bourbons (again) from being subverted into a perverse elitist idea of what democracy has to be if it isn't going to be the Reign of Terror all over again.

I was just thinking, it could be one of several things that could go differently in 19th century France to prevent as much polarization between republicans and monarchists.

Maybe the Marquis de Lafayette accepts the offer from the revolutionary committee in Paris to become dictator, rather than inviting the Duke d'Orleans to form his ill-fated experiment of a monarchy. Or, because that would set a bad example for constitutional government, maybe as head of the National Guard, Lafayette could at least extract an iron-clad guarantee of the franchise for every French taxpayer (his main political goal, according to Wikipedia at least) from whatever republican or constitutional monarchy regime could emerge from the July Revolution.

And for you guys curious about a commune in France, why not go earlier than the Paris Commune and channel Les Miserables with the June Rebellion (something that could be avoided by avoiding the July Monarchy)?

For the ultimate save-France-wank, how about instead of fleeing France, Lafayette leads the Gardes Nationale to ouster the Jacobins in 1792? Sure the mobs would still hate them, view liberalism too insufficient of their increasing radical demands even if Lafayette and others concede to republicanism, but maybe combined action of the Gardes in Paris and provincial levies, instead of just the provincial levies as per OTL, could restore order and save the moderates in the National Assembly from the guillotine.


Or, on the topic of a less polarized France with no July Monarchy turning the bourgeois republicans and working class republicans against each other and no failed but dramatic anarchist revolt two years later, maybe simply things like that in a timeline to have a less polarized France could result in a more stable French republic, as republicans are less leftist as a whole and conservative republicans and clericalists are firmly in the republican parliamentary group/ideological camp rather than consorting with monarchists? Well laicity is good and all, having a stronger and earlier Christian Democratic movement in France, and maybe having the Vatican officially ask French Catholic activists to recognize the legitimacy of republicanism earlier than it did in OTL might be good for the overall arc of French history.

[Yorel]

Voted "Constitutionnal Monarchy" because that is more or less what the Second Empire was turning into. By the 1860s, it was slowly becoming less and less authoritarian. The problem would be to avoid that damn 1870 war with Prussia...

[Marshal Tito]

Probably a moderate republic much as OTL-could do without the revolutionary socialists, the anti-Semites, and the Legitimists though.

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

Tell that to the Bourbons or Orléanists - or hell to the Bonapartists!

Or perhaps a military dictatorship dressed up in monarchical clothing.

[Imladrik]

Originally Posted by scholar

Because the empire is still a monarchy.

One that doesn't match facts: republics are by definition unstable, ranging from moderate instability and severe instability depending on elections and cultural change. A monarch actually provides stability. A monarch of a specific dynasty would more or less drastically reduce the total number of serious pretenders to the throne and make the political stage far more stable in regards to monarchical pretender parties [as well as the entire French political arena]. Given that it is a constitutional one with at the very least heavily limited influence over the legislature all the hallmarks of a republic are present there as well.

Which facts ? The longest Monarchy France had after the revolution lasted 20 years while the Third republic lasted 70. Sorry but there is no facts about the inherent god-given stability of the monarchies apart from this argument being used by monarchist when they have no other arguments. Remember that Venice was a republic for almost a thousand years before it fell due to Napoléon assholery.

And you haven't addressed my point. The only possibility for a French monarch at the time would be Phillipe d'Orléans (with Henri dead or he does not support Henri) or Henri d'Artois (who accept the tricolore). None of them would be elected in a free elections (without the Prussians controlling it). So how an unlegitimate monarch could keep it's throne without the apporval of the people ? Also, the presence of a monarch of one dynasty on the throne never made the other pretenders disappear in France. Did the partisans of the House d'Orléans vanished during the Restoration (ok they were never on the throne at this point but they were pretenders since the revolution) or the Second Empire ? Did the Legitimistes vanish during the Monarchie de Juillet or the Second Empire ? Did the Napoléonians vanish with the Restoration ?

Originally Posted by M. Adolphe Thiers

True, but Mac-Mahon was a legitimist and a stubborn one at that. The Count of Paris was a firm believer in popular sovereignty, and I don't see him trying to sack ministers who were republicans over political differences. If the restoration was done in a quick manner, and not dragged out for several years which caused people like Thiers to become Opportunist Republicans, then wouldn't the Republican Opposition be diminished to generally the Left Republicans?

If the Count of Paris was a firm believer of popular sovereignty he would seek election by popular suffrage (like Napoléon III did) and he would lose. There is no one to rig the elections for him after the prussian left France. And Thiers wasn't a Monarchist since 1848. He was used by the orleanist who controlled the assembly of Bordeaux because they didn't want to be associated with the peace treaty with Prussia and the butchery of cruching the Paris Commune. And people didn't became republican because the restoration dragged for several years. You don't have a swing of 50% of the opinion in 5 years in a question so deep as Republic or Monarchy.

Originally Posted by Laplace's Demon

And for you guys curious about a commune in France, why not go earlier than the Paris Commune and channel Les Miserables with the June Rebellion (something that could be avoided by avoiding the July Monarchy)?

The problem is that the socialist movement in France was mostly strong after 1871. It was strong in Paris before but not much elsewhere except the few industrial areas.

Originally Posted by Laplace's Demon

For the ultimate save-France-wank, how about instead of fleeing France, Lafayette leads the Gardes Nationale to ouster the Jacobins in 1792? Sure the mobs would still hate them, view liberalism too insufficient of their increasing radical demands even if Lafayette and others concede to republicanism, but maybe combined action of the Gardes in Paris and provincial levies, instead of just the provincial levies as per OTL, could restore order and save the moderates in the National Assembly from the guillotine.

The problem is : Lafayette was viewed as the King's man in 1792, and the Gardes Nationale were mostly Jacobins supporters or even far more to the Left, at least in Paris. And the moderate were the one who survived the terror and went on to establich the Directoire. The Right was crushed quickly as the left of the Jacobins. Only a few moderate were killed during the Terror (mostly the one criticizing the Comité de Salut Public too much).

Originally Posted by Laplace's Demon

Or, on the topic of a less polarized France with no July Monarchy turning the bourgeois republicans and working class republicans against each other and no failed but dramatic anarchist revolt two years later, maybe simply things like that in a timeline to have a less polarized France could result in a more stable French republic, as republicans are less leftist as a whole and conservative republicans and clericalists are firmly in the republican parliamentary group/ideological camp rather than consorting with monarchists? Well laicity is good and all, having a stronger and earlier Christian Democratic movement in France, and maybe having the Vatican officially ask French Catholic activists to recognize the legitimacy of republicanism earlier than it did in OTL might be good for the overall arc of French history.

I really don't think with that the Vatican in those years would do this.