Bonapartism in the 20th century

French monarchism was more or less discredited after the 19th century, though it experienced a bit of revivalism in the interwar period with some far-right groups. How about Bonapartism? Was it gone for good after Louis Napoleon?

Maybe in French political culture, Bonapartism is just one manifestation of following a strong general. Boulanger and de Gaulle are other examples. There isn't any Bonapartism anymore because that family isn't producing any such strongmen.
 
"Louis Martel" (the Prince Napoleon's nom de guerre) leads his Resistance unit to play a decisive part in the liberation of Paris. The law of exile (of the heads of the former ruling families) is abrogated in his behalf, and he becomes a prominent, though nonpolitical, figure in the Fourth and Fifth Republics

In 1968 he takes a significant part in ending the rioting. When de Gaulle resigns the next year, he informs the National Assembly that the Prince would be a suitable neutral ruling figure. Much constitutional argument follows, but in the end . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis,_Prince_Napoléon
 
I mean, if Legitimists and Orleanists didn't die out completely until after WWII or so, why not Bonapartists?

The prestige of the Bonaparte family derived from Napoleon. But he left no heirs. Louis Napoleon had just enough juice from the family name and enough personal capacity to take over in 1848-1849. But then he ran the Second Empire into the ground, and his only heir was KIA by the Zulus.

The debacle of the Second Empire squandered nearly all the prestige of the family, and there was no figure to make anything of what was left.

Basically the Bonapartes were upstarts and losers, and the nearest heirs were collateral cousins, none of whom were much of anything on their own.
 
Bonapartism as a political doctrine had evolved into several forms and the principles on which is founded the 5th Republic is an adaptation of these principles, the presidential republic supported by direct election being a canon.

This ''republican bonapartism'' has been established by Prince Napoléon-Jérôme who had relinquished dynastic claims of the Bonaparte family. However, this position had created a rift in the Bonaparte family, one already in way after the death of Napoléon III but which fully broke in 1879 due to the will of Prince Eugène who made Prince Victor Napoléon, Napoléon-Jérôme's son, his heir; Prince Napoléon-Jérôme refused to aknowledge the will because he felt that he was legitimately entrusted to become the head of Bonaparte clan (at the family sense excluding dynastic considerations, don't forget the Corsican roots).

Prince Napoléon-Jérôme's faction, called the Jeromists, was a minority and argued for a republican form of bonapartism, essentially a president with legitimacy founded on direct popular election. For instance, Boulanger secretly met Prince Napoléon at Prangins in Switzerland some time in 1888, but nothing came out (I don't remember the exact details, but Prince Napoléon was short on funds and I'm not sure he would have supported a coup).

By the contrast, the Dynastic faction headed by Prince Victor was much more conservative, aligned with Royalists on several topics. His party knew a brief resurgence in 1919 with around 20 deputies but soon faded.
After Victor's death, the position of Prince Louis rallied the Republican Bonapartism of his grandfather and renounced dynastic claims, and to this day, it's a modern version of Jeromist agenda that is defended by ''Bonapartists''.

As for monarchism, it's was still popular among far right groups but that disappeared after the war.
 

Redbeard

Banned
One thing is Bonapartism as "finding a suitable job for the leading member of the Bonaparte family", but isn't it also what you call it, when a talented general/warhero capitalise his status and talents to take over the country?

In this way de Gaulle expressed some degree of Bonapartism.
 
What if Napoleon III isn't captured but still loses the Franco-Prussian war and manages to win a small civil war against the Paris Commune?
 
All monarchist movements in France were seriously hampered by that there were three of them. That, and that the cooperation between political monarchist groupings and the monarchists themselves were quite limited. From time to time relations were even hostile.
 
The only real chance I see for a Bonapartist - or legitimist - revival would be a catastrophic defeat in WW1 or some analogous conflict in the early 20th century.

It's probably too late by that point, and the more likely result is some more mundane right wing dictatorship. But the Radical Socialists and Third Republic itself have to be badly discredited to give the old dynasties any real shot, and a disastrous military defeat is the most credible way to bring that about.
 
Contrary to the OP's supposition, I'd say that the Bourbons had a better chance of restoration than the Bonapartes. Neither of them had that high a chance, but the Bourbons at least had the possibility that if France fell under a right-wing authoritarian regime (probably ruled by the Army in alliance with the Church and the wealthy) in reaction to a rising tide of socialism, created by an establishment coup d'état against the democratic order that had turned too left-wing or was gridlocked (the sort of thing that happened in many places in inter-war Europe), the regime might restore the Bourbon monarchy, albeit only as a figurehead, in order to shore up its reactionary support base. The Bonapartes didn't even have that chance. The few remaining monarchists with any chance of gaining power were far-right reactionaries who preferred the Bourbons to the Bonapartes; the left and the mainstream right weren't really interested in monarchism any more.
 
It's a stretch, but would U.S. Secretary of the Navy and Attorney General Charles Bonaparte getting elected President somehow count?
 
Contrary to the OP's supposition, I'd say that the Bourbons had a better chance of restoration than the Bonapartes. Neither of them had that high a chance, but the Bourbons at least had the possibility that if France fell under a right-wing authoritarian regime (probably ruled by the Army in alliance with the Church and the wealthy) in reaction to a rising tide of socialism, created by an establishment coup d'état against the democratic order that had turned too left-wing or was gridlocked (the sort of thing that happened in many places in inter-war Europe), the regime might restore the Bourbon monarchy, albeit only as a figurehead, in order to shore up its reactionary support base. The Bonapartes didn't even have that chance. The few remaining monarchists with any chance of gaining power were far-right reactionaries who preferred the Bourbons to the Bonapartes; the left and the mainstream right weren't really interested in monarchism any more.

The surprising strength of Action Francais into the 1920's - stopped only by Pius XI's belated condemnation - suggests that there was significant strength on the right to help bring about such a regime - in the right circumstances.

And I agree that any Bourbon restoration would have been a very limited constitutional monarchy, sitting atop a conservative oligarchy of sorts.
 
What exactly is the political ideology behind Bonapartism? Could it be adapted in the 20th century to mean something along the lines of "transform into France into a liberal empire, fighting back and overthrowing counterrevolutionary rivals as necessary"? Because that's sorta what the French Empire was initially about, wasn't it? Maybe you can have a Bonaparte claimant with revolutionary leftist politics who is supported by the masses as a link to the past (descendant of Napoleon) with a vision for the future (strengthen France, overthrow her reactionary neighbors and set up revolutionary republics). So it'll be akin to those timelines where you have a monarch who's a pinko commie- isn't there one currently running with that happening in Britain?

Yes, it would be a weird mishmash ideology, but then so was fascism if you think about it.
 
Bonapartism as an ideology has only been theorized by Napoléon III to present a coherent program in his power bid, one founded on examination of Napoléon I's modus operandi. Roughly, it affirms the necessity of a leader in which the nation finds itself, a man invested with universal suffrage as per some of 1789 ideas. Milza in his biography of Napoléon makes some parallels with facism and evokes it as a form of populism, but ultimately rejects them, stating it is a different system (I don't remember exactly the points).

Still, if you want to have an idea of what Bonapartism is akin to, look at the Fifth French Republic. The lines set by de Gaulle were of bonapartist inspiration in all but name, with a president directly elected by people (instead of parliament as it happened since 1873), having great executive powers, essentialy overshadowing the parliament in its importance.
Anyway, such a process has been the logical conclusion of a process meant to solve the instability of parliamentarian republic, already present under the Third Republic and pushed to the excess under the Fourth Republic.
 
French monarchism was more or less discredited after the 19th century, though it experienced a bit of revivalism in the interwar period with some far-right groups.
It didn't really experienced a revival : if something, it was more rivaled by other far-right, either traditionalist or fascist. Basically, there's not much difference between AF in the 1910's and 1930's.

How about Bonapartism? Was it gone for good after Louis Napoleon?
Strictly speaking? Yes. Bonapartist deputés were eventually merging with center-right moderate republicans, as Orléanists did.

Maybe in French political culture, Bonapartism is just one manifestation of following a strong general. Boulanger and de Gaulle are other examples.
According René Rémond, who produced in his "Right-Wing in France since 1830", Bonapartism (conservatism, charismatic regime, autority) is one of the three basic origins of current far-right with Legitimism (anti-revolutionnary, traditionalist, clerical and somehow paternalist), Orleanism (liberalism, economic).

It's more than just a strong general/strong man appearing, but a conservatism build with state interventionism, representative of a part of french right-wing : De Gaulle, but as well La Rocque and the PSF.

Boulanger....is a special case : his political base was far far more mixed, and went from far-left to far-right, because everyone saw something different, while Boulanger himself didn't have a real program. I think that calling it a populism would be better fit.

I mean, if Legitimists and Orleanists didn't die out completely until after WWII or so, why not Bonapartists?
But they died out completly. Safe internet groups and whatever remains of AF (and let's be clear that even other far-right movements points and laugh at them)...I mean what remains is folklorism without any influence whatsoever.

What exactly is the political ideology behind Bonapartism?
It depends a lot on what we call Bonapartism : but roughly (if we're talking about Napoleonic reign), we have a charismatic regime, legitimized by a direct link with the nation (trough referunda) and above institutional representation (while directly intervening on institution when so fit). A mix of strong man and non-representative republicanism. It's eventually quite proteiform, even during a same reign (see how the IInd Empire changed between 1850's and 1860's).

On a broader sense, when we talk about "Bonapartist right-wing", it's the successor of these ideas, you can have in Gaullism : direct and "personal" relationship with the nation (see the large use of referundum by De Gaulle), opposition to a parlementarian-led institution in favour of an executive-led, state percieved as a mean to apply a policy, political interventionism.

Because that's sorta what the French Empire was initially about, wasn't it?
It's more complex : eventually the Consulate was more a result of an anti-parlementarian factionalism (with Seyies, for exemple) led against revolutionaries elements as Jacobins and Neo-Jacobins while keeping in most structural changes since 1789.

It's more "strike at the left, then strike at the right" in order to reach a stable, strong governemental power and prevent a certain conception of republican regime to be challenged.

Yes, it would be a weird mishmash ideology, but then so was fascism if you think about it.
It would be a bit going against what Bonapartism was IOTL : especially the "above parties and factions" part. You can see that Louis-Napoléon's victory depended not only of his name, but as well (and maybe more) from the fact he never really depended from one or several factions, appeared as a "new and clean man".
 
Top