Fosdick 1

Micaela Fosdick
Dr. Shadle
HON 220
27 Sept. 2013
Who has the Right? : The Advantages of Active and Passive Citizenship
This Revolution has brought about a lot of change; the most important change being that
reform can be made and accepted. We stand here now, at a critical stage, who should have the
right to decide the direction of this nation? Should just anyone be able to vote on issues such as
foreign relations, or how our money will be spent? The answer to this question is no. Only by
allowing active citizens to vote will government be the most efficient and effective. Active
citizens have a better understanding of the workings of government, will be able to take into
consideration consequences of all choices made, and if only active citizens can vote, this
promotes competition with an overall better France.
To begin, we should determine what it means to be an active citizen. Abbs Siys
distinction between active and passive citizens is the explanation that will be used in this
discussion. In his explanation, every citizen, active and passive, benefits from natural and civil
rights. The distinction comes into play with political rights which will only apply to active
citizens. Active citizens, as described by the National Assembly as of October 1789, are those
who pay a minimum of three-days wages in direct taxation and own property. (Wallerstein 652)
The benefits of this system will be the focus of this discussion.
An important factor taken into consideration when determining those with property will
best serve the government is who has the largest stake in government and therefore will be the
most heedful in their decision making. The 13th article of the Declaration of Rights of Man and

Fosdick 2

Citizen states that taxes will be equally apportioned among all the citizens according to their
means. (Carnes and Kates 60) Those with little income will no longer be expected to give back
to the government outside of their means. At the same time, those who have been successful in
their finances and own land will be paying according to their means as well; simple arithmetic
provides us with the conclusion that those who own land (paying additional property tax) will be
paying higher taxes. Essentially what we find here is that allowing active citizens the right to
vote is giving them the right to decide how their money is spent, because the majority of it is
theirs to begin with. Would it be fair to allow others, passive citizens who do not have as large a
financial risk involved with the government, to make decisions regarding the spending of monies
they have never possessed? In addition, the right to property and its protection has already been
established in the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen. (Carnes and Kates 59) This is the
same Declaration that was unanimously accepted by the National Assembly. Is this something
that would be considered important by those who do not own it? In order to truly appreciate an
asset such as property one must own it. And if one does not appreciate something, then what is
the incentive for them to consider it in their decision making. Allowing passive citizens who do
not own property to vote is giving them the power to decide what is important. We must ask
ourselves; do we want to risk the loss of this essential right and protection of property in order to
allow passive citizens to decide the future of our nation, using financial backing that was made
possible by that very property?
There is another aspect to take into consideration when discussing active citizens, as we
have described them, versus passive citizens and their role in politics: education and fiscal
responsibility. There is a certain level of understanding that comes when one has the
responsibility of maintaining ground and the privilege of education. (Dawson 2,13) People with

Fosdick 3

the power to vote and be elected will be making decisions that have real consequences for all of
France. Those in this position of power should not take such a responsibility lightly. For this
reason, only those who have proven to have the ability to make decisions on a grander scale than
a single person should be allowed to vote. This would include only those Frenchmen who own
land and have had the privileges owning land provides, such as education. Those with the
responsibility of owning land understand the importance of thinking ahead; the effect of a
decision made today will have ten years from now. Those with more wealth have had more
success in their financial ventures and therefore it makes since to have these people making
decisions in government in order to have that same success on a national level. If one were
seeking advice on investments, would one go to an advisor who is financially accomplished, or
one who is barely making ends meet? Therefore, because those with land have more experience
and are more knowledgeable, property must be requirement in order to become an active citizen.
This leads into my third and final point; although property is a prerequisite to becoming
an active citizen, this clause is not preventing anyone from becoming an active citizen. In fact it
is encouraging it. The possibility of growth is one of the greatest aspects of this system. Passive
citizens are no longer stuck in their social status, they have the chance to buy land and those who
want the vote can earn it. As mentioned before, the poor are no longer taxed beyond their means
and therefore are now able to save and earn the money needed to by land (land that is now
available due to the Decree on Church Lands and confiscation of Nobles excess land). (McPhee
1267) Now, not only will there be more wealth in France, but those who earn the right to vote
will not take it for granted, will be better informed, and will take this responsibility seriously.
This is really the core of what this system is trying to accomplish. Citizens who want the best for
France and are willing to work to see this vision of France achieved. All of this results in only

Fosdick 4

the best leading France into the future. In the end, France can only benefit from the growth now
available to passive citizens.
Despite the great advantage this system poses for France, there are people who believe
this creates inequality within France and is contradictory to the Declaration of Rights of Man and
Citizen. The people who wish to debunk this system will use the second article of this
document, as it states that the aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural
and imprescriptible rights of man. (Carnes and Kates 59) The other fear, regarding inequality, is
that this system draws a line between the wealthy and the poor. The result of this division is said
to be that the poor will not have representation within government and therefore acts done by
government will not be of the general will.
These arguments are all partially true; however they all conveniently leave out very
important conditions that are also stated within the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen. I
will begin by addressing the last issue stated that the poor will not be represented. This is in fact
false. The last discussion point of ability to grow and climb the ladder addresses this issue.
There will be those voting and being elected who at one point dealt with the daily struggles the
poor are now experiencing. It is unfair to take that experience away from a current landowner
simply because he was able to get out. In this way, the poor will have a voice; they will have a
voice that is speaking on their behalf and also one of encouragement and a symbol of hope. The
first point made in regards to natural rights of man can be addressed by the explanation given
towards the beginning of this paper. The Declaration of Rights of Man does in fact guarantee
natural rights to all men, and this system does not contradict this. Earlier, it the distinction
between natural and political rights was made. Every citizen under the law is guaranteed natural
rights as listed in the Declaration and the Proposed Constitution: liberty, property, security, and

Fosdick 5

resistance to oppression (with the limitation of bringing harm to others). However, political
rights are a whole other issue. While natural rights are rights for whose maintenance and
development society is formed, political rights are rights by which society is
formed.(Wallerstein 651) In other words, all citizens are able to benefit from rights that are
meant to improve way of life. However, political rights are those which grant people the ability
to engage in the law making process that makes natural rights possible. It is the responsibility of
this group, the political association mentioned in the Declaration, to insure that every citizen is
able to benefit from the natural rights promised them.
The prosperity of France, must be placed above all else. In the end, only those citizens
who truly have a stake in the government and are invested in its future triumph will have the
ability to lead us on this journey. Drawing a line between active and passive citizenship is the
best way to insure that this is accomplished. Active citizens have a better understanding of the
workings of government and will consider future consequences of decisions made in the present.
This system does not deny people the right to participate in government, it merely makes this a
right that is earned and thereby insures only those who can handle such a responsibility are
granted it. The future of France currently hangs in the balance of its citizens and decisions
made by this National Assembly. It would unwise to place the future of France in the hands of
those not ready to accept that responsibility.

Fosdick 6

Works Consulted
Carnes, Mark C., and Gary Kates. Rousseau, Burke and Revolution in France, 1791. New York:
Pearson Longman, 2005. Print.
Dawson, Philip. "The Bourgeoisie De Robe in 1789." French Historical Studies 4 (1965): 1-21.
JSTOR. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.
Fitzsimmons, Michael P. "Privilege and the Polity in France, 1786-1791." The American
Historical Review 92 (1987): 269-95. JSTOR. Web. 27 Sept. 2013.
Jones, P.M. "The "Agrarian Law": Schemes for Land Redistribution during the French
Revolution." Past & Present (1991): 96-133. JSTOR. Web. 27 Sept. 2013.
McPhee, Peter. "The French Revolution, Peasants, and Capitalism." The American Historical
Review 94.5 (1989): 1265-280. JSTOR. Web. 26 Sept. 2013.
Scott, James C. "Revolution in the Revolution: Peasants and Commisars." Theory and Society 17
(1979): 97-134. JSTOR. Web. 27 Sept. 2013.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. "Citizens All? Citizens Some! The Making of the Citizen." Comparative
Studies in Society and History 45.04 (2003): 650-79. JSTOR. Web. 27 Sept. 2013.

Fosdick 7

Application of Comments from Previous Paper

I definitely took a different approach with this paper than I did the first. The two
major applications appear in the overall focus of the paper and the counter argument. In
this paper I was able to narrow my focus and elaborate on less broad supporting reasons.
The reasons in this paper flow more naturally and simply fit better together than those of
my last paper. The counter-argument for this paper includes supportive claims made by
the opposing side and offered evidence. This in turn made my rebuttal more focused and
complete because I could address specific points in the opposing argument. As for
maintaining areas that I did well in, I believe this paper is just as well written and remains
true to my character. In addition this topic was thoroughly researched. I was unable to fit
all of what I read directly into my paper, however it did affect how I interpreted my
characters point of view and gave me a better understanding of France and the general
social strains during this time period. Therefore I included them in a works consulted
page.