Universal Suffrage for males... why did it happen ?

[Marla_Singer]

In France, the idea of universal suffrage clearly comes from the French Revolution, and more precisely the idea of equal rights for everyone. Once everyone has equal rights, they have to be able to express themselves equally as well.

So where does the idea of equal rights come from? I would say two things. The first one is the long and painful struggle between Protestants and Catholics in the country. Calvinist Protestantism grew a lot in French cities during the 16th century, but the King remained catholic and well, this has lead to the French wars of religion. The pinnacle was St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in 1572 during which tens of thousands of protestants were massacred in Paris and French major towns. Later in 1598, the King Henry IV enacted the Edict of Tolerance (better known as Edict of Nantes) offering freedom of conscience to individuals. Things got peaceful again. But then again, in 1685, the King Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, pressured by nobles feeling threatened by the protestant bourgeoisie. And this eventually lead to the Hugenots exodus.

The second thing is the French prosperity during the 18th century. The Bourgeoisie from large cities got extremely wealthy, and they were largely financing a nobility which was producing nothing in the extremely archaic French aristocratic Regime. In the middle of the 18th century, free thinkers like Voltaire or Montesquieu developped the idea that there couldn't be equal dignity among men if they don't all benefit of the same rights. That principle grew strong during the French Revolution which started in 1789.

What is kind of fascinating about the French Revolution is how liberal it was. It wasn't simply about beheading aristocrats like English-speaking countries summarize it too often. It was really about liberating the society at all levels. During the night of the August 4th, 1789, it's not only the priviledges of the aristocrats which were abolished, but also the merchant guilds, corporations, everything among the bourgeoisie guaranteeing the monopoly of certain families in a business. We went in one night from a totally closed economy to a totally free market in absolutely everything. 3 weeks later was voted the Declaration of Human Rights basically guaranteeing equal rights to everyone.

Following that principle of equal rights, Jews were emancipated in 1791, universal suffrage was established in 1792 and slavery was abolished in 1794. Then things started to get a bit dirty with civil war in the country and the terror. The conflict spead abroad and 7 successive European coalitions were formed to destroy the French Revolution, something which eventually happened 20 years later in 1815 (obviously many people were pissed). The foreign coalition restored Monarchy in France, but the ideas of the French Revolution were still around. In 1830, a new Revolution happened leading to a more liberal monarchy. And in 1848, that last French Monarchy was overthrown and the 2nd French Republic emerged. Universal suffrage came again, leading to the election of Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte as the French President. He then established an "Empire", but he never totally renounced to universal suffrage. The 2nd Empire wasn't as Authoritarian as it sounds, it was actually a very liberal regime, with local elections and the central power regularly organizing plebiscites to prove its legitimacy. Then the Empire collapsed and the 3rd Republic has followen.

Sorry for that quick French History class, but it's impossible to understand how emerged universal suffrage in France without that context. In a nutshell, universal suffrage is the direct consequence of equal rights. There can't be equal rights if people aren't equally free to vote for their representatives.

 

[Traitorfish]

@Traitorfish What you mention recalls me of a recent polemic among historians about when exactly the influence of the church declined in the 18th century, and why. Some have pointed out that at the beginning of the process the aristocracy ceased placing its younger sons and daughters in jobs inside the Church. Social change somehow predated political change: the church then became expendable and its economic influence and social influence cut down.
The thing it, it is still a debate on moves done by the elites. The "lower" population, the mass of the population who was still rural in much of Europe, was on the side that resisted change, and is usually is on that side. It was certainly on that side in opposition to the liberals in the 19th century. It always had to be dragged kicking and screaming (and shot at and bayoneted) into "modernity". In England this happened a long time earlier but the situation was similar: Henry VIII abolished the monasteries and the plebeians rebelled against him and were put down.

Much as it would be nice to believe that movement is commanded from below, the weight of the evidence points to the influence of the decisions taken above.

I think it is a stretch to argue that because, at certain times, the masses of the population have resisted what a scholar has later chosen to identify as "modernising" reforms, that all poor people are always, in all places and at all times, fundamentally reactionary in their outlook.

 

[Hrothbern]

In France, the idea of universal suffrage clearly comes from the French Revolution, and more precisely the idea of equal rights for everyone. Once everyone has equal rights, they have to be able to express themselves equally as well.

So where does the idea of equal rights come from? I would say two things. The first one is the long and painful struggle between Protestants and Catholics in the country. Calvinist Protestantism grew a lot in French cities during the 16th century, but the King remained catholic and well, this has lead to the French wars of religion. The pinnacle was St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in 1572 during which tens of thousands of protestants were massacred in Paris and French major towns. Later in 1598, the King Henry IV enacted the Edict of Tolerance (better known as Edict of Nantes) offering freedom of conscience to individuals. Things got peaceful again. But then again, in 1685, the King Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, pressured by nobles feeling threatened by the protestant bourgeoisie. And this eventually lead to the Hugenots exodus.

The second thing is the French prosperity during the 18th century. The Bourgeoisie from large cities got extremely wealthy, and they were largely financing a nobility which was producing nothing in the extremely archaic French aristocratic Regime. In the middle of the 18th century, free thinkers like Voltaire or Montesquieu developped the idea that there couldn't be equal dignity among men if they don't all benefit of the same rights. That principle grew strong during the French Revolution which started in 1789.

What is kind of fascinating about the French Revolution is how liberal it was. It wasn't simply about beheading aristocrats like English-speaking countries summarize it too often. It was really about liberating the society at all levels. During the night of the August 4th, 1789, it's not only the priviledges of the aristocrats which were abolished, but also the merchant guilds, corporations, everything among the bourgeoisie guaranteeing the monopoly of certain families in a business. We went in one night from a totally closed economy to a totally free market in absolutely everything. 3 weeks later was voted the Declaration of Human Rights basically guaranteeing equal rights to everyone.

Following that principle of equal rights, Jews were emancipated in 1791, universal suffrage was established in 1792 and slavery was abolished in 1794. Then things started to get a bit dirty with civil war in the country and the terror. The conflict spead abroad and 7 successive European coalitions were formed to destroy the French Revolution, something which eventually happened 20 years later in 1815 (obviously many people were pissed). The foreign coalition restored Monarchy in France, but the ideas of the French Revolution were still around. In 1830, a new Revolution happened leading to a more liberal monarchy. And in 1848, that last French Monarchy was overthrown and the 2nd French Republic emerged. Universal suffrage came again, leading to the election of Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte as the French President. He then established an "Empire", but he never totally renounced to universal suffrage. The 2nd Empire wasn't as Authoritarian as it sounds, it was actually a very liberal regime, with local elections and the central power regularly organizing plebiscites to prove its legitimacy. Then the Empire collapsed and the 3rd Republic has followen.

Sorry for that quick French History class, but it's impossible to understand how emerged universal suffrage in France without that context. In a nutshell, universal suffrage is the direct consequence of equal rights. There can't be equal rights if people aren't equally free to vote for their representatives.

This is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says on the causes of the French Revolution:

Although scholarly debate continues about the exact causes of the Revolution, the following reasons are commonly adduced: (1) the bourgeoisie resented its exclusion from political power and positions of honour; (2) the peasants were acutely aware of their situation and were less and less willing to support the anachronistic and burdensome feudal system; (3) the philosophes had been read more widely in France than anywhere else; (4) French participation in the American Revolution had driven the government to the brink of bankruptcy; (5) France was the most populous country in Europe, and crop failures in much of the country in 1788, coming on top of a long period of economic difficulties, compounded existing restlessness; and (6) the French monarchy, no longer seen as divinely ordained, was unable to adapt to the political and societal pressures that were being exerted on it.
https://www.britannica.com/event/French-Revolution

As I learned it at secondary school:
The Bourgeoisie "made" the money, increasingly so since Medieval time, but did not got an also increasingly stake in decisionmaking, was not integrated to some degree in a more formal way into the ruling elite.
When, as reaction on the turmoil, the Estates-General were called in session, the traditional body that emerged on top of the older Feudal system, where the three estates were represented (Clergy, Nobility, Commoners), it was for the first time since 1614.
(as reference: the Estates-General of the Habsburgians for the Low Lands, that stayed in place without King as sovereign entity of the Dutch Republic, had in practice every day meetings, including often Sundays, securing a continuous bargaining between the stakeholders).
When that Estate-General was populated again in France after elections, this was 300 Clergy, 300 Nobility, 600 Commoners.
The third estate, the bourgeoisie, demanded that voting would take place per head !!!
Not the 2:1 majority of the two estates against the one Commoners estate. This is one of the pivotal moments.
The French King, so used to absolute monarchy thinking, with the fig leaf of "enlightened", still not understood that the spirit of the people had changed (the philosophy of equality-dignity) and that the Commoners "made" the economy.
You could say: a failing elite.

And yes... what you describe... that so suddely this massive liberal wave sweeps through the minds of the population as liberating reaction on that surpression... fantastic

 

[BornInCantaloup]

I think the suffragette movement is as bottom-top as it can get.

France had the first "universal suffrage" but... there are lots of shadows behind the light.
1789 : Revolution, Universal Suffrage to vote for a Constituant Assembly. Because it's almost already the Terror, it will be the only US vote of the 1st Republic. Participation is 10%. Candidates are almost exclusively pro-Revolution.
As soon as the Terror ends, the census is established again. Napoleon will re-establish the Universal Suffrage because, you know... conquering Europe and preparing for 1848 and all...

Regarding the Ancient Regime, it's easy to consider the aristocracy like a unified "class" but it's all wrong. You've got the ancient nobility despising with all their guts the nobility that was newily appointed for services to the king.
If you're going to form a constituency, of course there are power struggles. The old blood is in direct competition with the king, that's a given. The new blood goes with the king against the old. And it's also closer to the merchant class. When you modify a constituency, you aim to short-cut / undermine an electoral body. It's like drawing districts in a city, based upon demographics.
*Come the Revolution, most of the old nobility is as poor as Don Quijote de la Mancha. A few of them are insanely rich because of lands.

Nowadays : it's interesting to grant voting rights to foreigners. Possibly under conditions, like, they're working or something.

 

[Lexicus]

Out of curiosity, what follows from the proposition that universal male suffrage was the result of enlightened elites? Suck up to modern-day elites as much as possible in the hope that they will grant the commoners some more privileges?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Out of curiosity, what follows from the proposition that universal male suffrage was the result of enlightened elites? Suck up to modern-day elites as much as possible in the hope that they will grant the commoners some more privileges?

Nope, they never did it from the good of their hearts but because of pressure from below or because of factional infighting amongst the elites.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

Government needs support. Granting voting rights is a way to get support. Even though you can then rig the voting system. e.g. : the election is indirect. Representatives are elected, who will elect other representatives, who will elect other representatives, who will elect other representatives... Now, what this amounts to is that representatives co-opt each other.

In a similar fashion : voting rights are defined in the Constitution. The Constitution often guarantees a list of rights and it's interesting to note that the right to property is the most fundamental one.
Bottom-top is all relative but these Constitutions foremost aim to gain the support of the bourgeoisie. Because the State needs money. Voting rights come at a time when the aristocracy doesn't hold the money anymore.

There is nothing enlightened about it. Just like it wasn't by virtue of enlightenment that England became a parliamentary monarchy.

 

[Hrothbern]

Out of curiosity, what follows from the proposition that universal male suffrage was the result of enlightened elites? Suck up to modern-day elites as much as possible in the hope that they will grant the commoners some more privileges?

What AmazonQueen said:

Nope, they never did it from the good of their hearts but because of pressure from below or because of factional infighting amongst the elites.

For sure part of the elite was enlightened and more open for experiments, but I think that created only the characteristic of it being used for rivalry of factions of the elite.
Basically the opportunities of a minority for the rivalling majority.

* I think Luik is an excellent example how pragmatic an elite can be. The need for soldier-citizens and giving back a stake in power.
* Finland as well from the post of Peuri: a Finnish dealmaker getting the ok from a Russian Czar to "get peace there in that province" under pressure of domestic Russian issues. Whereby the "tumult" noted by Peuri is the socialist movement.
Whether that pressure is such as described here IDK, but it was anyway perceived as big enough an issue: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/03/womens-suffrage-socialist-feminism-finland
* France a gigantic swift move from without much influence of the commoners directly to male suffrage, and then a back and forth until the Liberal Revolution and then full male suffrage early in history (as part of elite rivalry).
* The Netherlands a wellconnected (to urban commons) elite adapting slowly but steadfast.

I rather keep this thread on that male suffrage...
but compare it to climate
and assume that civil society is now a major part of "the elite".
In the late 60ies, early 70ies the awareness of environment, sustainability, climate emerge... mostly the university part of civil society. In the late 70ies and 80ies frustration grows that the increased knowledge does not lead to actions of the political elite (from socio-economic left to right). Farmers block change from their (strong) political representatives, industry the same, trade unions the same. That new dimension is pushed away. The result is movements emerging, and far more players in the civil society putting prio to it, but not much further than some funding for investigations and individual people changing their lifes.
We are now 50 years down the road since the start around 1970.
Compare that with the 50 years since the French Revolution => 1839
Climate green changes is in terms of big amount of resources still not emerged. But it is just like male suffrage in 1839 a factor between rivaling factions in the seats of power.
And meanwhile reaching the phase of a business opportunity.
How many mass protests have been there to push green economy ?
How many mass strikes have been there to push green economy ?
How many green political parties are there with enough PR to push green economy ?
In how much do you need young generations pushing out the older ones to get change ? And is the high old age of today stiffling that ?
How many lost business opportunities have been there to start green economy earlier ?
(for example vegan meat hardly needs R&D cost to develop and could have started government driven in a grand scale decades ago... why did that not happen ?)

I think so far climate-sustain-environment has been the typical minority movement as "welcome" playball for the elites of many kinds to profile themselves upon in their factional rivalry.


Back to suffrage.
That's history
Besides being interresting as such, and some offsprings like participation democracy and since recently more direct democracy thought emerging...
I think it should help us to understand how elites react, absorb, use an emerging conviction, that once implemented goes in the core of the elites themselves.

 

[Hrothbern]

The Constitution often guarantees a list of rights and it's interesting to note that the right to property is the most fundamental one.

Yes
Originating as "peace" within a legal entity.
But this is one that allows irreversible changes of wealth and inequality.
When the cost of building of houses goes roughly up with inflation (which it BTW should not do because of productivity increases and pre-fab components made on factories).
That still does not help starters to be able to buy their own house for an affordable part of their real wages, because the price for the land goes up faster than inflation in areas with enough jobs.
The same land price up causing difficulties for affordable social housing near jobs.
It is not enough to protect wellfare and real wages when you cannot protect as government your low income masses from faster increasing land prices protected by the constitution regarding property rights.
It will be interesting to see the coming decades how this awareness will emerge in the masses, and how the buy in of a majority of the votes is handled by the amorphous elites.
The real question will be whether the elite will need the buy in of all voters by arranging the right for affordable housing. So far it is an profiling argument between factions of the elite.

 

[Traitorfish]

Nope, they never did it from the good of their hearts but because of pressure from below or because of factional infighting amongst the elites.

The question stands: what follows? The premise is that the masses are politically inert until mobilised by elites in their own interest, that only elites are capable of substantive political action and that all substantive political action is elite-initiated, so what do we do with that knowledge?

 

[AmazonQueen]

The question stands: what follows? The premise is that the masses are politically inert until mobilised by elites in their own interest, that only elites are capable of substantive political action and that all substantive political action is elite-initiated, so what do we do with that knowledge?

Start a vanguard party? Itself a form of elite.

 

[Traitorfish]

Start a vanguard party? Itself a form of elite.

It's starting to sound like "elite" is being taken to describe any politically-active person.

 

[Hrothbern]

The question stands: what follows? The premise is that the masses are politically inert until mobilised by elites in their own interest, that only elites are capable of substantive political action and that all substantive political action is elite-initiated, so what do we do with that knowledge?

Two of the typical elite initiated actions in the pre WW2 era in NL were of a "build up" nature: 1. broad emancipation programs from existing political and religious groups and 2. initialising and training of self-organisations.
Self-organisations like playground associations, tenant associations and school associations, etc got (and still get) state money and member contribution money incl regular fundraising collection box actions.
This generated a continuous generating of board members from and closely connected to their base.
In my opinion a low level elite with a tension between influence-up to higher elites and encapsulated-institutionalised by those higher elites at the same time. And a tension between political non-poltical in general profile, but also increasing political awareness of themselves and their base.
Faciliating participation democracy of people through supporting self-organisations instead of direct voting contribution. That self-responsibility from "self-governing" and representing of interests accountable to their base a kind of "filter", a kind of proto-elite forming, to get the same "language" when bargaining with the higher-up elites.

 

[Hrothbern]

It's starting to sound like "elite" is being taken to describe any politically-active person.

no

An elite is perfectly able to take positions and decisions against the popular opinion of its base !
However low-level that elite is.
And an elite is not 1 person in that respect, but an entity that does this elite behaviour repeatedly and consistently despite personal changes as such.
It is much more the position difference between a board and the members of a (small scale) association.
Has much more to do with a "governing" responsibility and/or long term strategy and such considerations.

 

[innonimatu]

I think it is a stretch to argue that because, at certain times, the masses of the population have resisted what a scholar has later chosen to identify as "modernising" reforms, that all poor people are always, in all places and at all times, fundamentally reactionary in their outlook.

Granted, you are right. Labour rights were a fight done from below, and they were a modernization. There are examples of both.

 

[Sofista]

In Italy, universal suffrage for males was established in 1912 (before that it was census based, with limits progressively lowered). Women were allowed to vote after WWII.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Out of curiosity, what follows from the proposition that universal male suffrage was the result of enlightened elites? Suck up to modern-day elites as much as possible in the hope that they will grant the commoners some more privileges?

In asking the question whether universal suffrage came from enlightened elites or commoners, I believe we disregard the massive movements in the society which occured during the period. From the 18th century to the 20th century, the society got urban, industrialized, demographically boomed and the elites have rapidly changed as a result. When a newer elite challenges the older elite, this necessarily generates friction in terms of power. I believe universal suffrage was perceived as a solution to guarantee a stable order in a moving society. So maybe rather than an "enlightened elite", the evolution mostly came from former commoners becoming the newer elite . At least this seems to fit in the French case.

But things didn't happened the same way in all countries. Catholic countries tended to "rush" universal suffrage to a society which wasn't necessarily prepared for it, this has often lead to the rise of autocrats considering they were representing "the people". Protestant countries seem to have been a lot more progressive in their evolution, maybe because the established elite was more open to newcomers. During decades, voting rights were limited to an elite in many protestant countries without leading to any revolt from commoners, an idea a lot less acceptable in catholic countries. Differences are a lot less strong nowadays as "populism" seems to grow similarly in countries of both protestant and catholic heritage.

In Italy, universal suffrage for males was established in 1912 (before that it was census based, with limits progressively lowered). Women were allowed to vote after WWII.

While France was kind of a precursor regarding universal suffrage, it was very late in opening it to women. Most people in France are considering this is due to the patriarchal model of the French society, which is mostly true, but not completely.

As a matter of fact, the first time women were allowed to vote in France was during the Paris commune in 1871 so we can wonder why there hasn't been any suffragette movement in France during the following 3rd Republic. If the French left hasn't embraced it as one of its stuggle, it's because women stayed more religious than men by the end of the 19th century, and the radical left actually feared this would give more power to clericalists, who were their ennemies. As a result, voting rights were allowed to women in France only in 1944, exactly at the same time as in Italy.

 

[Hrothbern]

While France was kind of a precursor regarding universal suffrage, it was very late in opening it to women. Most people in France are considering this is due to the patriarchal model of the French society, which is mostly true, but not completely.

As a matter of fact, the first time women were allowed to vote in France was during the Paris commune in 1871 so we can wonder why there hasn't been any suffragette movement in France during the following 3rd Republic. If the French left hasn't embraced it as one of its stuggle, it's because women stayed more religious than men by the end of the 19th century, and the radical left actually feared this would give more power to clericalists, who were their ennemies. As a result, voting rights were allowed to women in France only in 1944, exactly at the same time as in Italy.

Similar to Belgium, but in their debates much more clearly on the power effect of the clergy.
In Belgium the Conservative Catholic party was strongly battling in favor of voting rights for women and achieved that in 1920 for municipality elections. For the national elections it took until 1948. The Liberals were outspoken against, and the Socialists were ambiguous: full suffrage on the banners but never voting according to their banners.
In 1948 the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats formed a government coalition where full suffrage was part of the deal.

 

[Sofista]

As a matter of fact, the first time women were allowed to vote in France was during the Paris commune in 1871

Looking into it more, it turns out some women were allowed to vote after WWI, in Gabriele D'Annunzio's madcap Free State of Fiume.

Odd fact: in 1925, Fascism decided that women would be allowed to vote for local elections. However, by 1926 they decided that no such things were necessary anymore...

 

[Zardnaar]

To an extent I suppose the elites made the calculation that extending voting rights was a way to keep your head on. A few did believe in some form of representative government such as the USA. They weren't liberals by modern standards but they were Liberal by the standards of the time.

Pressure from below also played a part. In a way you Co opt those below you. Even in relatively Liberal place such as Vistorian era England the power of the state was overwhelming. Troops did get used on civilians. If Victoria era UK isn't your idea of Liberal its relative to the rest of the world where slavery, serfdom, and autocratic monarchies were the norm.