JC433 THE RISE AND PROGRESS There is no complete agreement about the use of the word democracy. Most citizens of the United States, for example, are prepared to affirm that they are members of the greatest democracy on earth and that the European countries, although involved in a varying degree of democratic transformation, lag far behind themselves. Many Europeans, however, deny that the United States is anything but superficially democratic and confidently assert that more truly democratic conditions prevail in certain regions of the old continent. The divergence of opinion is explained by the different meaning attached to the word and idea in question. Americans are inclined to think of democracy as an exclusively political creed, while Europeans, at least of a certain advanced type, think of democracy in a more purely social sense. In this paper we shall interpret the word, in order to meet all exigencies, as broadly as possible and consider it as signifying the movement on the part of the people of the civilized world to take the control of their political, social, economic and all other interests whatsoever out of the hands of a class or group of classes in order to assume the control themselves. Our purpose will be to trace the movement from its rise in the eighteenth century down to our own day. M775742 To begin the evolution of democracy with the eighteenth century is decidedly arbitrary, for democratic tendencies may be noticed in the earliest times and sporadic societies of a more or less democratic cast have existed in many a land and epoch. Athens, for instance, boasted a democracy as Rome did afterwards; we may scoff at the variety but we can not treat it as non-existent. Again, in the Middle Ages there were democratically governed cities everywhere amidst the feudally governed states of Europe. But all these democratic experiments ended in fiasco and have as good as nothing to do with the great movement that set in in the eighteenth century and, constantly adding new strength, has poured in an unbroken, irresistible stream into the century which has just begun. The eighteenth century movement was amply prepared by the general conditions matured in Europe since the Reformation, but it saw the light of day in France and owed the first form of its program to the particular situation in that country. A swift review of eighteenth century France is therefore an indispensable preliminary to our story. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. France before the year 1789 was an absolute monarchy, that is, the political power was exercised by an hereditary monarch and his appointed officials. Such a monarchy need not leave the welfare of the people out of consideration, but the danger that it will do so is always great and in France the danger had become an overwhelming reality; the French monarchy existed only for itself. But it did consent to share the exploitation of the people with two classes which stood particularly close to the throne and had accumulated a vast number of special privileges, the clergy and the nobility. These were therefore called the privileged orders, and quite naturally, after the law of selfish flesh, came to look upon themselves as divinely selected to be an ornament to society and to feed upon their fellows. But meanwhile a new class had arisen inclined to challenge that convenient view. The new class was made up of those whom the French call the bourgeoisie, that is, the merchants, bankers, manufacturers, lawyers, and physicians, who congregated in towns and owed their existence to production and exchange and to professional service. The trade opportunities opened by the New World had increased their wealth and numbers and, conscious of their growing strength, they became more and more exasperated with the financially oppressive government of the king and his numerous ornamental parasites. Out of their discontent, doubtless economic in its origin, there developed a general and sweeping criticism which strove more and more to get at fundamental principles and ended with an investigation of the nature of the state and the rights and duties of its citizens. Voltaire and Rousseau-to mention only the best known leaders of the bourgeoisie-magnificently illustrate the trend of the new ideas. Voltaire declared in denunciatory pamphlet or keenly satirical squib that every institution inherited from the past, the monarchy, the church, the feudal privileges, and the law-courts would have to be reformed in order to bring them into harmony with the interests of the bourgeoisie; and Rousseau went even further and declared in fanatic, unequivocal terms that the slate would have to be wiped clean and a brand-new society erected on the ruins of the old in accordance with the eternal principles of liberty, equality, and brotherhood. These ringing preachments supplemented by the pipings of a hundred lesser voices brought the sense of conditions unworthy of the dignity of man to the attention of the general public and prepared an irresistible movement of protest. It was in the year 1789 that the accumulated criticism reached its flood-point and, bursting the dykes, in a surprisingly short time swept the institutional landmarks of France into oblivion. With the victory won over king and privileged classes the French people took up the work of reconstruction. The bourgeoisie or, as we would say in America, the middle classes, first tried their hand at the game, but the patch-work which they had in mind was not to the liking of the masses and was swiftly sent overboard together with its sponsors. The confused period which followed and during which the liberated masses took fierce vengeance on their former leaders is usually called the Reign of Terror. The Reign of Terror, in spite of its sinister name, was not merely or even primarily a massacre; it was an honest attempt to realize the republic of freedom and equality, though it led to as overwhelming a failure as has ever been recorded. For one reason or another the leaders, instead of building up a new society, succeeded only in spreading fear and undermining confidence with the result that every gracious hope of an earthly paradise yielded presently to the iron necessity of re-establishing order. The country, tired of chaos, clamored for its man of destiny, its savior on horseback, and in the year 1799 this miraculous being appeared in the person of the brilliant and successful young general, Napoleon Bonaparte. Bonaparte, as the world knows, followed a personal, not a revolutionary course. What cared he for the bourgeoisie and its program of political control? What cared he for the people and their confused dream of liberty and equality? He satisfied the prevailing clamor for security of life and property-so much must readily be conceded-but having popularized himself with this achievement he turned his attention to the engrossing and titanic program of conquering Europe by armed force. We all know his military triumps; we also know his failure and his overthrow. When in 1815 victorious Europe sat in judgment on the fallen conqueror, it not only condemned him to perpetual exile on the island of St. Helena but it also seized the occasion to declare that the whole democratic idealism with which the French revolution began was a delusion and a snare and that safety lay only with the old-fashioned, pre-revolutionary system of monarchy. Thus the first great experiment undertaken in Europe to realize a democracy ended or seemed to end in total failure. THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. An attempt made at the same time to establish a democracy in distant America was crowned with success. Essentially the reason for the happier outcome in the west is to be found in the simpler living conditions which prevailed in the new continent. The rebels of the thirteen colonies may be looked upon as practically a community of free and independent farmers and when in 1776 they renounced the government of the |