Populism of “All” The People
Marx’s book “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte” (1869) examines the events that preceded and followed Bonaparte’s December 1851 coup d’état and provides a historical analysis of the class tensions that were common in France at the time. Marx analyzes the relationship between politics and society by emphasizing the ways in which the various social classes and the governmental apparatus shape the course of events. In terms of class relations, the bourgeoisie gradually discovered that its own political power was a cause of instability, despite having first backed the parliamentary republic. They backed Napoleon’s coup because they wanted a strong leader to defend their economic interests and social order. As the largest class in French society, the peasantry was essential to Bonaparte’s base of support. By posing as their advocate and offering to attend to their complaints and demands, Napoleon was able to win support for his policies from a large number of people. However, the state apparatus — which included the military and bureaucracy — had grown so strong and autonomous that Bonaparte, an outsider, could lead it. This autonomous state authority was essential to carrying out the coup and preserving Bonaparte’s rule.
Although Bonaparte’s coup d’état had taken place in the 19th century in France, I argue that it is possible to evaluate the concept of “populism” that dates back to the 1960s through the incidents of the 1850s. In the late 1960s, the concept of “populism” emerged in discussions surrounding decolonization, the future of peasant movements, and even the trajectory of Maoism and Communism (Müller, 2016: 5). Müller challenges the notion that specific socioeconomic groups, such as the lower-middle class, are the main supporters of populism and suggests that this view is empirically dubious and may stem from discredited assumptions from modernization theory (Müller, 2016: 14). This paper will focus on how we can engage in the populism discourse through Bonaparte’s political decisions and acts. Firstly, I will focus on the populists’ relation with “the people” and how “the people” are represented in the public realm. Then, I will highlight institutional decay that can be originated from a “depoliticized stance” and end up in a populist’s consolidation of authority.
Firstly, Müller argues that populists claim exclusive representation of the people, rejecting pluralism and asserting moral superiority. In addition to denouncing the elites, populists assert that they are the only group that represents the people. They claim that only they accurately reflect the will of the people, and they reject pluralism. This involves an ethically charged version of anti-pluralism in which opposing political figures are viewed as morally deficient (Müller, 2016: 20). The institutional decays -that will be discussed in this paper- further strengthen this notion of morally deficient opposition figures. To distinguish between the morally pure people and their opponents, populists may use various criteria (Müller, 2016: 25).
Marx, for example, draws attention to the petty-bourgeois-democratic party’s betrayal and abandoning of the proletarian party, which indicates the division of society based on adherence to political objectives. The proletarian party appears as an appendage of the petty-bourgeois-democratic party, which implies a hierarchy of moral purity within the political landscape (Marx, 1869: 20). Marx also addresses the creation of the Social-Democratic party, a coalition of workers and petite bourgeois that opposes the coalescing bourgeoisie. This alliance proposes a division between the bourgeoisie and the working class according to their political affiliations and perceived interests (Marx, 1869: 23).
Nonetheless, Marx’s analysis of Bonaparte’s portrayal as the patriarchal benefactor of all classes (Marx, 1869: 66) complicates the narrative of a populist representing an exclusive group of people. Bonaparte’s policies appear to assist every group in the public sphere, even though it is expected of a populist leader to formulate policies that serve a certain targeted group; yet, they are catalysts for his personal agenda. For instance, he promotes industry and commerce for the middle class through railroad concessions, while allowing underhand dealings for the Bonapartist lower class. Despite promises of public works to provide employment, taxes are reduced for the middle class at the expense of the working class. He offers assistance to peasants through mortgage banks, but these ultimately lead to increased indebtedness and property consolidation (Marx, 1869: 66). Throughout, Bonaparte portrays himself as the paternal figure ensuring the welfare of all classes, albeit with policies that often prioritize his own interests. Hence, the populist act of Bonaparte is not necessarily derived from the relationship he established among and through different classes of the public but the fact that the constitution draws a line between the assembly and the president in the eyes of the citizens.
Marx’s perspective on the constitution under the bourgeois monarchy of Louis Philippe asserts that unlike the elected National Assembly, which retains a more abstract link, the relationship between the elected President and the nation is more direct and personal. The National Assembly’s members represent different aspects of the national identity, while the President represents the essence of the country. Unlike the Assembly, the people immediately bestowed onto the President a quasi-divine authority (Marx, 1869: 13). The other aspects of the constitution such as invisible limits on liberties, made it fragile and ended up in the downfall of bourgeois republicans, followed by Louis Bonaparte’s formation of a ministry of the party of Order and his actions leading up to the coup of December 2, 1851. The proletariat and petty bourgeois saw Bonaparte as a bridge to monarchy, and Marx traces the causes back to the peasants who had to foot the bill for the February Decisions (Marx, 1869: 16). The provision of the constitution that gave the president almost divine authority and tied them to the country directly had an enormous effect. Therefore, this sacred power inherent in the constitution, its direct connection with citizens and its power should be accompanied by the need for a clear and political stance that can respond to the demands of all segments of society. This power included handling the complaints of the peasants, which Louis Philippe failed to accomplish. This setback raises questions regarding the regime’s “depoliticized stance”.
Institutional decays, which may end up in lack of clear identification of political parties, are one of the indicators of a country that is governed by populist tendencies. According to Mouffe, populists capitalize on the depoliticization of mainstream parties to mobilize support (Mouffe, 2005: 54). Mainstream parties increasingly adopt a depoliticized stance and fail to offer meaningful alternatives, right-wing populists capitalize on popular frustrations by mobilizing passions and creating collective identities around the notion of ‘the people’ (Mouffe, 2005: 54). Although her argument revolves around a world that embraces neoliberal ideology; this argument can be adopted in the 19th century France in which the depoliticization of the monarchy of Louis Philippe created an opening for Bonaparte to appeal to marginalized groups.
Mouffe argues that to effectively counter the rise of populism, it is essential to recognize the antagonistic dimension of politics and develop a theoretical framework that acknowledges the role of passions and collective identities (Mouffe, 2005: 56). Thus, regardless of the prevailing regimes or ideologies, the antagonism within the rule of the state makes it blurry for public when who gets what for whom. Leaving a space for unfulfilled demands or under-represented identities or interests may end up in a clear, politicized stance to appeal the people. Once the depoliticized mainstream parties do not correspond to certain identities, a populist fill in and then seeks to centralize state power to maintain control.
Without rooted institutions and on the way to coup d’état, a leader can centralize state power through manipulation. Müller argues that populists present themselves as the only solution to existential threats, solidifying their hold on power (Müller, 2016: 43). Bonaparte’s appeals to stability and promises of solutions, presenting themselves as the only solution to existential threats (Marx, 1869: 59–61), promises aimed at different social classes, such as industry and commerce, the middle class, and the peasants, illustrate his attempts to manipulate economic policies to garner support and maintain power (Marx, 1869: 66). Also, Bonaparte’s efforts to cultivate an image of closeness to the masses through public appearances and appeals to universal suffrage (Marx, 1869: 39); his alignment with the military against parliamentary power, derived from concerns about elite control and the consolidation of authority (Marx, 1869: 17) corresponds with Müller’s claim that populists use a state colonization strategy in an effort to seize power over key agencies like the judiciary and civil service (Müller 2016: 44).
In conclusion, Marx’s examination of Louis Napoleon’s ascent to power provides an understanding of the mechanisms underlying populism. Marx shows how Bonaparte used power dynamics and crisis management to maintain his grasp on power via the prism of class conflict and political scheming. Firstly, I critically engaged in Müller’s argument that populists claim exclusive representation of the people by highlighting Louis Bonaparte’s strategy of appealing to all segments of society. Secondly, the nature of the constitution that gives power to the president paved the way for the reveal of the fragility of this power, which is examined through Mouffe’s argument on ambiguity in politics. Once the under-represented have a voice through a populist; the leader needs to consolidate authority. I finally touched upon how manipulation tools can be used to succeed in centralizing power. Although populism is a concept that emerged in the 20th century, 19th century France enables us to comprehend chronotopes and conjunctures of populist tendencies.
This paper is written for the Pols 472 class in the 2024 spring term at Boğaziçi University.
References
Marx, Karl. 1869. 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York: International Publishers.
Mouffe, Chantal. 2005. ‘The End of Politics’ and the Challenge of Right-wing Populism. In Populism and the Mirror of Democracy, edited by Francisco Panizza, 50–71. London: Verso.
Müller, Jan-Werner. 2016. What is Populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
