Mass Politicization & The Birth Of Political Parties After The 1848 Revolutions
The typical conclusion regarding the 1848 revolutions was that of failure. The main aims, nationalist ambitions, parliamentary democracy, were not met. The strength of the military to resoundingly crush revolts, coupled with the fatal factionalism of these movements, made it unsurprising that these movements had so unequivocally collapsed. Certainly, the 1848 Revolutions had failed to ‘turn’ in so far as measuring the ability of the revolution in achieving its immediate aims. Yet whilst the old order had survived the revolution, on hindsight it proved to be a Pyrrhic victory.
The 1848 revolution had lasting legacies, which included the immediate abolishment of serfdom, but more crucially, medium-long term legacies that paved the way for the major processes of political change in the 19th century. Hence the 1848 revolutions, whether a turning point, should be measured in terms of the extent to which they accelerated or retarded the major processes of change in the 19th century, namely national unification/self-determination and democratization. I argue that despite its immediate failures, the 1848 revolution had to be a turning point to the extent that its legacies – mass politicization and birth of political parties ushered Europe into a new era of political consciousness, thereby accelerating the path towards the major political shifts of the late 19th century.
The instinctive verdict of the 1848 revolutions is that of failure, where nearly none of its main aims were achieved. Europe had not transformed into a continent of parliamentary democracy as romanticized. In Vienna, conservatives pushed their way back into power through military might by October. In Berlin, Frederick William had recovered from his initial shock, again with the help of the army, and by the end of the year, the Frankfurt parliament had lost most of its influence. Neither had nationalist dreams of unification or self-determination taken flight.
Nationalist ambitions were literally crushed in Italy by General Radetzky who subdued the Northern Italian provinces of Lombardy and Venetia. Similarly the Habsburgs, with the help of a 400,000 men strong Russian army, dashed hopes of an autonomous Hungary. In other words, revolutions everywhere were crushed by 1849. A key reason for the failure of the 1848 revolutions to ‘turn’ in terms attaining its immediate aims had been that in so far as the revolution penetrated deep into society, it had failed to penetrate the army – a key pillar of vormarz absolutism.
Across Europe, the military was actively employed to deal with widespread order. Instead of supporting revolutionary change, armies in general pledged undying loyalty to the Monarch. Hence, leaving the army intact amidst the confusion of 1848 meant that the ‘turning point’ of 1848, in terms of achieving its aims of parliamentary democracy or unification/self-determination, was short-lived . Furthermore, when considering the fatal factionalism that plagued revolutionary, it becomes unsurprisingly that the 1848 revolutions failed to ‘turn’, in terms of achieving its aims of parliamentary democracy and unification/self-determination. Factionalism plagued revolutionary movements on several levels.
Firstly, revolutionary movements were divided along ethnic lines which prevented unification and self-determination. Proposals for a united Germany that included Czech areas were met with strong resistance. Similarly, Slav objection to an autonomous Hungary was exploited by the Austrians who took the chance to crush Hungarian ambitions. Secondly, and more crucially, class divisions left the revolutionary movement too weak to ‘turn’ away from the old order. Divisions saw the revolutionary movement lose the support of the middle class, leaving the workers to face the rejuvenated forces of the old order alone. The revolutionaries initially reached a temporal cooperation across different social classes, but this did not translate into a long-term convergence of interests.
Disagreements emerged over the fundamental objectives and the extent of change by the revolution. The middle class was largely satisfied with freedom of press and representation. The workers, however, pushed for more radical socialist demands and eventually resorted to violent means. Once the breakdown of social order became clear, the middle class proved to be far more conservative, abandoning their gains and rallied with the old ruling order. As Hobsbawm argued, ‘When the barricades went up, all moderate liberals were political conservatives’. Even though the German middle classes wanted liberal progress, they prioritized social stability above all which they ironically later concluded could only be guaranteed by the Crown.
The revolution had failed because as it developed, it was no longer a revolution between the old order and the liberal progress, but between that of revolution and social stability, of which the bourgeoisie chose the latter. Ultimately it could be said that the peoples were not ready for the revolution – it had proved too radical for them, hence dooming its failure. When responding to the argument that the revolution had ‘failed to turn’ in terms of achieving its immediate aims, the easy counter would be the case of Switzerland where the old ruling order was indeed replaced by one of the middle class. A national success story, however, should not be conflated with the analysis of a pan-European trend of the 1848 revolutions.
Still, from a pan-European perspective, even if the revolutionary regimes had been overturned, the same cannot be said of many of the changes brought about by the revolution. Some of these changes had been permanent, others merely suppressed and gradually reemerged later. The 1848 revolutions, whether a turning point, should be measured in terms of the extent to which they accelerated or retarded the major processes of change in the 19th century, namely national unification/ self-determination and democratization. It indeed was a ‘turning point’ in so far as it ‘turned’ Europe away from the ancient regime and irrevocably set Europe down a different path.
Before proceeding with my argument, it should be noted that not all the European societies nor all parts of society were equally affected. Yet the impacts discussed further below can still be viewed with a pan-European perspective when considering how Europe had effectively grown into a communication zone in 1848. The changes in Berlin and Paris were so palpable that it evoked political discussion in England and even Russia, where revolution had not taken place. Having acknowledged that the medium-long term legacies of the 1848 were vital, there were also significant short-term changes that should not be ignored.
The most significant was the abolishment of feudal domination and serfdom in the countryside, which was not reversed even during the counter-revolution . This was a colossal step forward towards a modern agrarian structure, accompanied by other agrarian reforms. These dealt with the touchy problem of rural poverty in the lands of the Habsburg empire, parts in Germany as well as Italy. Such changes were not only social but had important political consequences. Ending the servitude of peasants meant that the judicial rights over peasants shifted from the nobles to the state. The peasantry now had the same legal rights as everyone else, which eventually paved their way for integration as citizens in the modern state.
Critics may question the extent of ‘turning point’ since the agrarian reforms preceded 1848. It should be seen as a turning point, however, in so far as it was the 1848 revolutions that forced forward a leap in developments that could no longer be reversed with the counter-revolution, ending any previous uncertainty regarding the direction of rural development. In fact, the counter-revolution had cemented this change. The former leaders recognized that whilst the demands of the people could be suppressed, they could not be ignored and hence were willing to make concessions. Evidently, the pressing concerns of the peasantry did not simply disappear with the counter-revolution. The same can be said of other demands, democracy and national unification/ self-determination , although it would certainly be longer before conservatives were forced into these concessions.
1848 had been a turning point as a form of agenda setting, paving the way for the key political shifts of the 19th century. Although the reality of 1848 remained far behind its demands, it was measured against them, which meant that the standards set during the revolution remained relevant beyond 1848 . Across Europe, questions of democratic rights, political representation, civil liberties were raised. These questions were eventually answered where by the end of the century, some form of constitutional government existed in nearly every European state. This shift is epitomized by Maurice Agulhon’s argument that the Second Republic was a ‘republican apprenticeship’ in preparation for the permanent establishment of parliamentary democracy.
Elsewhere in Europe, questions of national unification and self-determination were raised . The end result was a striking similarity between the eventual state of Germany and the original German state proposed in the 1849 constitution written by the Frankfurt Assembly: a constitutional regime with the king of Prussia, excluding the German lands of the Austrian Empire. Similarly, Italian unification was the culmination of a vision founded in 1848. So what are the lasting legacies of 1848 that help us draw the links between 1848 and the political shifts in the late 19th century?
Firstly, the politicization of the masses was a turning point as it ushered in an unprecedented era of mass politicization of European society. Pre-1848, politics had been marginal to the masses and revolved around kings, officers and ministers. Post-1848, however, saw European society buzzling with political discussion and ideas. 1848 gave the peoples their first taste of politics, to debate ideas, and to exercise the right to express their views through voting. Even the middle and lower classes became sensitive to nationalist symbolism, even if their conceptions of it differed. Although parties were concentrated in the cities, their push and reach into the countryside had been hitherto unprecedented. All the sections of the population were certainly not equally politicized, but none remained entirely politically apathetic.
This unprecedented scale of mass politicization puts the 1848 revolution as a stand-alone in its century, undoubtedly a turning point. 1848 laid the foundation of political life for the second half of the 19th century – mass proliferation of newspapers, flyers, songs, festivals. The massive growth of newspapers propagated political discussion. Whilst they were eventually shut down, it was the creation of such a culture that played a role in the complex and protracted process of developing a modern political personality. Political discussion on issues of democracy, nationalism no doubt posed a public pressure that eventually expediated those agendas in the late 19th century.
Secondly, the birth of political parties had been a turning point as it transformed the great ideologies of the early 19th century into powerful political parties in 1848 . Even if the birth of political parties can be found pre-1848, it was 1848 that allowed these political parties to develop into strong organizations to the point of standing for elections. These political parties had a much wider appeal than their predecessors. Interestingly, even the political inclinations of 1848 tended to be a foreshadow of the geographic distribution of political inclinations beyond 1848. For example, areas of “red France” in 1849 continued to support the left well into the 20th century.
Similarly in Italy, strongholds of radical associations in Tuscany, Bolognese later reappeared as the heart of the Italian Communist Party in the late 19th century. In other words, 1848 not only saw the creation of political parties but lines of political loyalties. Furthermore, even if Labor and Socialist parties were repressed in the counter-revolution, their leaders later reappeared in the late 19th century. Whilst there is no simple continuum between 1848 and the ultimate strength later political parties, at the very least leaders were produced and support was amassed.
In conclusion, when measuring in terms of the immediate aims of democratization and national unification/ self-determination, the 1848 revolutions had failed resoundingly to be a turning point of any sort. However, when adopting a long-term perspective and measuring in terms of the extent to which 1848 accelerated the major processes of change in the 19th century, the legacies of 1848 – mass politicization and the birth of political parties, should positively be a turning point. While it is erroneous to draw straight lines between 1848 and direct events of German/ Italian unification and democratization or suggest any inevitability, the legacies of 1848 no doubt accelerated this process.
