You can prove that virtually anything is the product of elite machinations if you look exclusively at the legal mechanisms by which it was achieved. Simply because there wasn't a vast column of peasants marching on the capital doesn't mean those elite decisions were not a response to popular pressure. After all, if the poor had no interest in voting, what political advantage could have been gained by extending the franchise?
There is a difference between the poor benefitting to vote, and the poor organising themselves to vote, directly on topic or indirectly by joining for (also) that reason for example a socialist movement.
But when the elite of a socialist movement decides to put suffrage in its banner, and their followers do not mind, are happy with it, it is not a direct movement for suffrage.
I made the post to find out how it went in other countries. I know, think to know, how it went in my country, and I summarised that in my conclusion for NL.
Going more into detail of that development in NL:
The big step happens in 1848, when we got a parliamentary monarchy on the wake of the liberal revolt. This was good for 10% of the males having the right to vote.
But this 1848 step was most of all correcting that we got back "our Dutch Republic" that was run over by Napoleon.
Those "liberals" were already in charge in the last 100 years of the Dutch Republic.
That stupid Restauration, where the monarchies of Europe divided among themselves the power again after Napoleon, was a big regression for the Netherlands. We got back an absolute Monarchy, that we had not have since 1568.
Well... those liberals, the progressive faction, pushed for increasing the % of voters step by step, supported by socialists in the end of the 19th century, but were hindered by the Conservatives, partially conservative liberals and partially Protestants, who favored the House of Orange in a stronger role. The same split-up as during the two centuries of the Dutch Republic. More Liberals in the cities, more Conservatives, Orangists in rural areas.
However, what changed with Napoleon was the general education for all citizens. And the Liberals wanted this education to be secular and not Christian, and had so much control on the government that there was only money for secular schools and universities. The christians needed to raise their own church tax to pay for christian schools, to control the cultural education of their children. With the increasing duration of education by law, this became more expensive.
Perhaps this sounds all silly seen from another country but this school funding battle dominates Dutch politics from 1815 to 1917.
In 1917 the progressive Liberals and the Socialists (also secular in profile) made the deal with the protestant conservatives that suffrage for all males was accepted in exchange for the state paying for christian schools. In 1919 this became universal suffrage, despite resistance from the conservative christians (the man is the sovereign Lord of the family).
The way I write it up is having the Socialists in a side role, but that does not mean that that they did not contribute. It only comes in the last phase.
In 1870 women start to discuss emancipation, in 1889 the VVV is founded, the woman's suffragettes, and it was founded as a broad autonomous movement, that wanted to be no part of any other movement or political party. One issue and support from all segments of society. The main activities were directed at emancipation of women in all aspects of life.
Emancipation. The right to vote just one of the targets.
In the early 1890ies the Socialists sought support of the VVV for suffrage for male in exchange for suffrage for women, but could not accept the full package of the VVV. In practice the Socialists were not that emancipated. More than the conservative christians ofc, but less than the progressive Liberals.
So we have around 1900 meanwhile a census vote right that allows 50% of all males to vote,
progressive women bashing their (progressive) husbands, and a workers class, male (and female), having no right to vote.
It is at about this point in time that the Socialist movement and parties in NL start really making a fist to get suffrage for all males. Perhaps also noteworthy that it is the moderate SDAP, SocialisticDemocraticLabourParty, that had voting rights high in the banner and organised around 1910 the Red Tuesdays for that goal, and NOT the more radical Socialist party SDB from which the SDAP splitted off in 1894.
The other big strategic change that takes place is that the VVV splits in two movements. The VVV keeps getting voting rights in its banner. The new NBV put voting rights in postponed "mode", and focused on emancipation only to "preprare" women for the time that voting rights for women "made sense". The NBV covered the more conservative Liberals and moderates.
All in all this split up worked very good for the woman's emancipation and its power accumulation, because their emancipation efforts became wider accepted and covered meanwhile the whole society in a non-political party fashion. The Socialists covered as party the workers women, and only the christian women were not covered. (leading in that end-phase to get the christians on board for voting rights in exchange for state paid christian schools).
Against this background of societal developments there is ofc a lot of politics as well (too much for this post to describe all that as function of the increased % of voting rights and the potentials from higher % voting rights), and until 1900 the progressive Liberals are the winners in these intra-parliaments rivalries, and sadly enough, when they reached their two goals, male suffrage in 1917 and universal suffrage in 1919, they were not rewarded by the voters... because after all, most of the Dutch population was still christian raised and the major part of that, the lower educated, not that progressive and with 100% suffrage that took effect.
For most of the next 70 years, until 1990, the christian political parties dominated the Parliament, and the best governments were mostly christian-socialist coalitions.
Perhaps the Netherlands is simply too progressive Liberal and woman emancipated for the Socialists (of that time) to have had a chance to develop enough grassroot power in time to have played a bigger role.
