Publications / Article

Extract from Of Centralization and Its Effects

Camille Hyacinthe Odilon Barrot

Barrot (1791-1873) was prominent liberal monarchist under the July Monarchy in France (1830–48) and a leader of the electoral reform movement of 1847.

Throughout his early public career he consistently opposed the centralization of power. The reforms that Barrot championed failed to materialize, but in 1848 a republican revolution deposed King Louis-Philippe. Barrot joined the moderate Republicans and was appointed to high ranking posts under Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte. 

In 1852, Barrot, dismissed from office, mounted a campaign against Louis-Napoleon’s law that he called “stifling centralization”, “the apoplexy at the center and the paralysis of the extremes.” The law restricted the right of local councils to hold public meetings and allowed Paris to replace the locally elected heads of those councils with crown appointees. 

In 1861 he published a collection of his arguments entitled “Of Centralization and Its Effects” (Paris: H. Dumineray, l861). Decentralization, he argued, would liberate the energy and manners of the people; diminish the hostility between classes, increase the nation’s  prosperity and stability, and strengthen representation in government.  He favored home rule for provinces and a strong judiciary to protect rights, particularly the preservation of family estates and property.

Elias Regnault was Barrot’s chief of staff during his brief period as prime minister (1849-51). Over the next two decades he amplified Barrot’s argument for “the provinces to reclaim their place in the life of society and in the political and intellectual domains, and its position as the source of the light vivifying France.”

The ideas of Barrot and Regnault inspired Russian liberals. The nobleman Peter Dolgorukov wrote “On Changing the Form of Rule in Russia”, that proposed nearly autonomous provinces. Vladimir Chalcasski wrote an enthusiastic and widely read review of Alexis de Tocqueville’s “The Old Regine and the French Revolution” (Rosskaia Beseda, 1858). (For the story of the decentralization debate in Russia, see Frederick S. Starr, Decentralization and Self- Government in Russia 1830-1870 (Princeton U. Press, 1972)).

Of Centralization and Its Effects 

“I am glad to see that the most accredited writers rarely miss the opportunity to point out the dangers with which too much concentration of power threatens our country. The old party distinctions, even the old flags were put aside this time; we rallied in a common effort, against an evil of which everyone is aware: a happy symptom which would seem to announce that the distinctions between people, words and forms have significantly lost their influence, and that there is a tendency to meet on the merits of things, to form only two serious parties in France, one who holds his country in high enough esteem to believe it worthy of doing his own business, and one who, on the contrary, declares it incapable, as a result of an organic and incurable infirmity. An honorable and admirable league, it must be confessed; for it has as its aim and its obligation a great truth to make triumph; truth to which history has not, to date, given a single denial; a truth for all times, for all countries, applicable to the nations of antiquity like those of our modern times, to the West as to the East; namely that the strength and vitality of societies waxes and wanes, depending on whether the powers and rights of the individual are respected or stifled by the central government.” Pp 26-27

“For the individual to become a force in the State; that is to say, for his rights to be respected, for his natural energy to not be hindered, he must not remain isolated, otherwise the State will inevitably erase and absorb him. It is therefore necessary to group individual forces together and connect these different groups, so that, according to the most accurate statement by M. Royer-Collard, one cannot strike one of the parts of the whole without the others groaning as well.” Pp 207-208

Barrot cites this extract from the remonstrances presented to King Louis XVI on behalf of the Cour des Aides, by M. de Malesherbes, 1775:

“Each body, each community, had the right to administer its own affairs, a right which we do not say is part of the primitive constitution of the kingdom, since it is a higher right: it is the right of reason; however, it has been taken away from your subjects, Sire, and we would not be afraid to say that the administration has fallen in this respect, into such excesses … We have come to the point of declaring the deliberations of the inhabitants of a village null and void when they are not authorized by the manager; so that if this community has an expense to approve, it is necessary to have the concurrence of the sub-delegate; as a result, to follow the plans which it adopted, to employ the workers whom it supports, to pay them according to its desire, and even if the community has a lawsuit to support, it is also necessary that it is authorized by the manager; the case must be pleaded before this court before being brought to justice, and if the manager’s opinion is contrary to the inhabitants, the community is deprived of the power to defend its rights. Here, Sire, are the means by which we have stifled all municipal spirit in France, extinguished even the feelings of the citizens: we have, so to speak, prohibited the whole nation and have given it tutors.” Pp 245-246

Share: