THE NAPOLEONIC SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION IN FRANCE
| Published date | 01 April 1946 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1946.tb00997.x |
| Author | Alfred Cobban |
| Date | 01 April 1946 |
52
‘UXH
NAPO1,NONIC
SYSTNM
OF
A
DMINISTHATION
IN
FRANCE
THE
many problems involved in the rebuilding of the social
and political structure of France will be dealt with in due
course by the French nation itself.
It
cannot be pretended,
however, that Great Britain has no interest in the establish-
ment of a stable, democratic form of government in France.
For this reason it may be justifiable
€or
us
to
examine briefly
one
o€
the more important, yet less ohvious, aspccts of this
question. The nature and significance
of
the central institu-
tions
of
government are easy enough to appreciate: the
purpose
of
this paper is to suggest that the form of local
government
is
also a matter of major importance.
The centralised administrative system which has prevailed
in France was the work
of
the Revolution and Napoleon.
Centralisation itself preceded the Revolution, which began with
a
spontaneous movement all over France
for
the establishment
of local self-government. The National Assembly, alarmed at
the prospect
of
the country falling under the control of
thousands
of
little municipalities, but unwilling to perpetuate
the
ancien re‘ginte
traditions of the provinces and
gkntralitts,
attempted to canalise this movement by dividing France into
dtpartements.
Successive revolutionary Governments found it
increasingly necessary to forestall possible opposition by
depriving both
comm
uncs
and
departemmts
of the machinery
of free self-expression. Finally, Napoleon eliminated the elec-
tive principle completely, and substituted for
it
the authority
of nominated
prcjets,
sous-prejets
and
muircs.
The niachiiieyy
of
administration thus created was too
favourable to the powers
of
the State to be willingly sacrificed
by any of the rcgimes that €allowed during the nineteenth
century. In opposition, both republicans and monarchists
might flirt with the idea
of
decentralisation, in power they
upheld the centralised system of government. The reason
for
this is plain. Fundamentally
it
was not the administrative
inerits of centralisation that ensured its preservation, but its
political advantages. The
prcfet
was primarily the political
agent
of
the Government. Casimir-PCricr exposed the basic
principle
ol
the system in his declaration that
it
was not the
duty
of
the Government to remain neutral in elections. The
To continue reading
Request your trial