The Way of Reform, Lost in 1789

Every year on the 14th of July, France celebrates its Revolution. They celebrate liberty, equality, and fraternity. They honour the sacrifice of many men and women who gave their lives in the fight against repression, subjugation and a system that did not change. However, is that really true? Was there no other way? Or is this celebration just a national myth?

Opening of the Estates General at Versailles on 5 May 1789, oil painting by Louis Charles Auguste Couder (1839). Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. 

Crisis

Why was there a revolution in France in the first place? For the sake of this essay, we are focusing on the socioeconomic situation. It was dire. The country experienced crisis after crisis: a looming bankruptcy; a failed harvest in 1788; growing unrest caused by high inequality and social injustice. No wonder the country faced revolution.  

Was there no one who tried to reform? In fact, there was. Louis XVI himself appointed many reformist financial ministers to change the system. But each time, the high nobility blocked change to protect their privileges. In 1786, Charles Alexandre de Calonne introduced a fair proportional tax system on all estates but was vetoed by the noble court. A year later, another tax on landowners was voted out by the powerful Parlement de Paris. And these are just some notable examples. Ironically, even the king, later guillotined as a symbol of tyranny, had in fact tried to push France toward reform.

Reform

Given the situation, the king took steps towards genuine reform. He called the Estates-General. You are fully entitled to ask, what are these Estates-General? The French society then was structured into 3 estates: the clergy; the nobility; and the rest, also known as the commoners. To call onto the estates-general meant to let the estates vote in an assembly and decide the fate of the country, in other words: the Estates-General was an assembly for reform.  

There is a prevalent view that claims that the Estates-General were no assembly for reform at all. The logic is simple and sensible. Given that the assembly consists of 3 estates, all of which having the same voting strength, why would the nobility or the clergy ever give up privileges or strengthen the rights of the general population? Surprisingly perhaps, the three estates agreed on a several key issues. All of them agreed to institute a national parliament; to curtail the executive power of the monarchy; and to establish a constitutional monarchy. These are no small steps of agreement. 

Indeed, this was a great opportunity and pathway for genuine reforms, even beyond unilateraö agreements. The third estate had the king and the finance minister on their side, they had the public on their side and even a significant amount of liberal clergy and nobles who were ready to reduce their own privileges for the national good. These reforms could have been structured similarly to the ones carried during the Age of Liberty in Sweden (1718-1772) or the Polish constitution in 1791. What is important to keep in mind is that there was significant momentum in favor of reform.  

Did the third estate use this momentum in the estates-general to find common ground for reforms? No, they did not. Instead, the third estate radically and unnecessarily escalated the conflict. They declared themselves the National Assembly and supported violent measures such as storming the Bastille (a nearly empty prison). To be fair, many within the Third Estate did try to keep the process peaceful and within the Estates-General, but to no avail.    

Execution of Louis XVI, copperplate engraving by Georg Heinrich Sieveking (1793). Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. 

Chaos

The National Assembly took drastic measures, fataly drastic. Ambitiously, they abolished special privileges of the nobility in 1789 and the traditional structure of the clergy in 1790. In essence, they dissolved the legal system of France, a decision they soon came to regret. The replacement of the old system, the Constitution of 1791, quickly collapsed. The assembly was simply in way too much turmoil to agree on anything concretely. In 1793, another constitution was proposed and failed yet again. That means that from 1790-93, France was in a state of partial anarchy.

One could think that a restoration of order would have been just what France needed. Sadly, it went from bad to worse. Order was restored under Robespierre, a dictator, who made it his maxim to institute terror on the population, of which he deemed many to be anti-revolutionary. One of his close associates, Bertrand Barère, famously exclaimed "Let's make terror the order of the day". Guillotines were set up all across the country. Each day, dozens were executed in Paris alone. Who was next? Nobody but Robespierre knew.

Aside from executions, the economy worsened by the day. The French government started printing paper money en masse. Prices went through the roof day by day. Today's money was worthless in just a day or two. Inflation killed, literally. Speculators were executed, and enterprise was condemned as greed. Business activity ground to a halt. Price controls were established on all kinds of goods, which unsurprisingly led to major shortages and black markets. All in all, the economy was ruined.

France gained neither liberty, nor equality, nor fraternity. They did not even resolve the financial crisis - the very reason reforms had been needed in the first place.  Instead, it gained bloodshed, economic ruin, and, in the end, another monarchy under Napoleon. Reform was possible. The Revolution destroyed it.

As Jacques Mallet du Pan observed in 1793, ‘The Revolution devours its children.’ 

Published 16th of August, 2025

Michael Alexander Volkonsky is a 21-year-old economics student at Lund University, a science communicator exploring interdisciplinary issues, and an advocate for open debate and critical thinking.