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

[SPJ]

I've been wondering about the effects that the removal of Napolean III and the creation of the French Third Republic had on France as a whole. Could any of you tell me which form of government would have benefited France the most in the form of strengthening its economy, military, and well being of its citizens and why? Also if you choose Republic please explain if you think that the Third Republic of OTL was the best or if a different form would have been better.

Edit:
I forgot to mention the Paris commune in my poll. True the commune of OTL wasn't a cohesive thing but if it had formed a succesfull communist or socialist government in France how would that have compared. Also how could these forms of government have managed the French colonies differently to France's benefit?

[Wolfpaw]

The Slut did better than what her Bonapartist and Royalist enemies were offering the people.

A radical socialist regime would be interesting.

Of the three, a republic.

[SPJ]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

The Slut did better than what her Bonapartist and Royalist enemies were offering the people.

A radical socialist regime would be interesting.

Of the three, a republic.

"her" who are you talking about?

[Wolfpaw]

Originally Posted by SPJ

"her" who are you talking about?

The Third Republic was often called "the Slut" by the right opposition. I'd also point out that a constitutional monarchy will not dissuade Royalist opposition to parliamentarianism, but rather encourage it, especially given the rather reactionary nature of both the Orleanistes and Legitimistes. French secularism will certainly be retarded.

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

I'd also point out that a constitutional monarchy will not dissuade Royalist opposition to parliamentarianism, but rather encourage it, especially given the rather reactionary nature of both the Orleanistes and Legitimistes. French secularism will certainly be retarded.

How were the Orléanists reactionary? Because they weren't anti-clerical and wouldn't have passed the Jules Ferry Laws? Prince Ferdinand was hardly like the ultra-legitimists, if only he hadn't died in that carriage accident. It's been a while, but I'm fairly certain that Philippe was committed to Parliamentarianism as well.

Legitimists will whine until Chambord dies, and that's about it.

[Texian]

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

A stable one.

[Colin]

I guess the implication of this is that the third republic was not stable but by French standards post revolution it was probably the most stable regime they had, it lasted nearly 70 years, (the current fifth republic is the next closest contender lasting so far 54 years (I know this because I am two weeks older than the French 5th republic) and although it was born in and collapsed in the most terrible conditions actually for most of the time it provided a paradigm for prosperity and relative stability and it transcended the crisis of WWI.

Both Bonapartism and Monarchy were too sectional and seemed unable to make the transition to constitutional organisation. The Third Republic, for all the chronic changes in government did provide, even in the thirties, a place where the main shades of political opinion could be represented, (unlike say Spain where ultimately the conservatives/nationalists refused to function under a republic), and had the war not come along there seems to be no reason why it would have collapsed in 1940.

That said the real guarantors of stability in France since the onset of the 5th republic have been economic prosperity and European security. With those in place any constitutional regime would have a decent chance.

[Xgentis]

I think even the second empire was slowly evolving toward a constitutional monarchy. But the best government is the government the people of France would choose for themselve.

[mrmandias]

The most beneficial form of government for France in the late 1800s would have been kleptocracy and warlordism . . . in Germany.

[Chris Triangle]

France is not England. Monarchy no longer not garnered the same kind of respect that it did in Britain and it is very unlikely that it would ever do so. The French experience with monarchical regimes in the 19th century was really quite negative. I find it hard to believe that French citizens would take a restorned monarchy very seriously, constitutional or not.

[Imladrik]

I would say the Republic, as Republicans formed the largest political movement in France, even if they are not the majority. Yes it would be opposed by the three monarchical movements, but those movement would also be opposed by all the others.

Maybe a radical socialist governement could be stable (i doubt it), but it would be opposed by at least the monarchists and we don't have any example of radical socialist during this time to draw lessons about it.

[scholar]

Given the immense civil discord, and an apparent tug-a-war between the monarchist groups and the republicans, I would suggest that the compromise of a constitutional monarchy would be best. While GB levels would be near-asb at the time, something approaching that might be doable.

[Wolfpaw]

Originally Posted by scholar

Given the immense civil discord, and an apparent tug-a-war between the monarchist groups and the republicans, I would suggest that the compromise of a constitutional monarchy would be best. While GB levels would be near-asb at the time, something approaching that might be doable.

That just empowers the monarchists, who will always rally to the King to support them against liberal, democratic secularism at every turn. And why shouldn't he; they form his political power base. Too, this promises to retard French secularization to a point that could see some nasty problems arising from the clergy, or for the clergy down the line.

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

That just empowers the monarchists, who will always rally to the King to support them against liberal, democratic secularism at every turn. And why shouldn't he; they form his political power base. Too, this promises to retard French secularization to a point that could see some nasty problems arising from the clergy, or for the clergy down the line.

If a Constitutional Monarchy is restored in the late 19th Century, then odds are it's the Orléanists at the helm. I fail to see how the Legitimists' agitation would cause too serious of problems for Philippe. Odds are he'll denounce their extremism, and work around them. They learned the lessons from their grandfather's failure to expand their powerbase to the petit bourgeois.

I agree that laïcité will not exist in this timeline as we know it, but I don't think the King is going to be held hostage by the kind of intransigent reactionaries who went to supporting the Carlist pretender after Chambord died. How could Boulangisme emerge when the King is back on his throne?

[Imladrik]

Originally Posted by M. Adolphe Thiers

If a Constitutional Monarchy is restored in the late 19th Century, then odds are it's the Orléanists at the helm. I fail to see how the Legitimists' agitation would cause too serious of problems for Philippe. Odds are he'll denounce their extremism, and work around them. They learned the lessons from their grandfather's failure to expand their powerbase to the petit bourgeois.

I agree that laïcité will not exist in this timeline as we know it, but I don't think the King is going to be held hostage by the kind of intransigent reactionaries who went to supporting the Carlist pretender after Chambord died. How could Boulangisme emerge when the King is back on his throne?

Simple answer. They are not a majority nor a plurality supporting one specific king. Napoleon III got to power by manipulating Orléanistes, Legitimistes, Napoleonians and some conservative republicans together. There is no way that such a coalition would work after Napoléon III as there was less monarchist of all kinds than in 1849. And i personnally think that the monarchist were a minority in 1871 as in those elections the Prussians controlled the electoral process and favored the monarchists. There is no way that in 5 years the balance shifted from almost 50%.

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

Originally Posted by Imladrik

Simple answer. They are not a majority nor a plurality supporting one specific king. Napoleon III got to power by manipulating Orléanistes, Legitimistes, Napoleonians and some conservative republicans together. There is no way that such a coalition would work after Napoléon III as there was less monarchist of all kinds than in 1849. And i personnally think that the monarchist were a minority in 1871 as in those elections the Prussians controlled the electoral process and favored the monarchists. There is no way that in 5 years the balance shifted from almost 50%.

And if somehow the monarchy was restored in 1870, you don't think there'd be enough moderate republicans, without 6 years passing and the Seize Mai Crisis, who would be placated by the return of a liberal parliamentary system to preserve the government in the near future? I'm not as fresh on the period as I was in the past, so I'd like to hear your take.

[Premier Taylerov]

Even though I hit monarchy instead of constitutional monarchy, I firmly believe that in order to compete with the European colonial race France needs a strong imperial figure (such as Napoleon III) to be the unifying force behind the development of the nation. Where would the unification of Italy be without him, for example? I don't know enough about the internal workings of 1800s French politics, but it seems logical to me.

[Xhavnak]

The republic was just about the best thing they could have. Monarchy would probably still have been reactionary and a socialist commune inspired state is more likely to have broken apart bloodily.

[scholar]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

That just empowers the monarchists, who will always rally to the King to support them against liberal, democratic secularism at every turn. And why shouldn't he; they form his political power base. Too, this promises to retard French secularization to a point that could see some nasty problems arising from the clergy, or for the clergy down the line.

This just doesn't have any resonance for me.

Empowers monarchists? So what? Any form of government empowers the group that fights for it. Republicans benefit from republics, monarchists from monarchies. It is almost nonsensical as its saying that a Liberal Presidency is bad for a country because the liberals would be empowered by it. If a state as a free elective process than who it empowers ultimately roots within the people, and regardless of who is benefited from that it should not be infringed. You seem as though you are suggesting that a constitutional monarchy should be resisted on the grounds that the people need protection from their own desires.

Just to bring up: the monarchist factions are constantly supporting other candidates. If you're a monarchist most of the time you have a very specific candidate in mind that you believe should rule. If you want Napoleon IV, you will not support Louis XIX. There were at least three major parties, in which subdivisions were formed around different people within a dynasty that should attain power and by which lineage they deserve it more. Having a constitutional monarchy with one of those rulers in charge would not empower monarchists, it would weaken most of them drastically.

As for secularization, this just seems without substance for me as there is very little different between French views on the Church in the conservative position than in other catholic countries, and in those areas that are different France would actually be far more secular and liberal in those areas.

[Imladrik]

Originally Posted by M. Adolphe Thiers

And if somehow the monarchy was restored in 1870, you don't think there'd be enough moderate republicans, without 6 years passing and the Seize Mai Crisis, who would be placated by the return of a liberal parliamentary system to preserve the government in the near future? I'm not as fresh on the period as I was in the past, so I'd like to hear your take.

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.

Originally Posted by Premier Taylerov

Even though I hit monarchy instead of constitutional monarchy, I firmly believe that in order to compete with the European colonial race France needs a strong imperial figure (such as Napoleon III) to be the unifying force behind the development of the nation. Where would the unification of Italy be without him, for example? I don't know enough about the internal workings of 1800s French politics, but it seems logical to me.

Yeah because there is no way that a Republic would manage to be the number 2 colonial power behind the juggernaut of the era. NO WAY !

Originally Posted by scholar

Just to bring up: the monarchist factions are constantly supporting other candidates. If you're a monarchist most of the time you have a very specific candidate in mind that you believe should rule. If you want Napoleon IV, you will not support Louis XIX. There were at least three major parties, in which subdivisions were formed around different people within a dynasty that should attain power and by which lineage they deserve it more. Having a constitutional monarchy with one of those rulers in charge would not empower monarchists, it would weaken most of them drastically.

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

Originally Posted by scholar

As for secularization, this just seems without substance for me as there is very little different between French views on the Church in the conservative position than in other catholic countries, and in those areas that are different France would actually be far more secular and liberal in those areas.

I think the Laicité would still probably happen, maybe later but the left republicains were the largest party until 1924.