the crowd-第33部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


Whether　the　suffrage　of　crowds　be　restricted　or　general；　whether　it　be　exercised　under　a　republic　or　a　monarchy；　in　France；　in　Belgium；　in　Greece；　in　Portugal；　or　in　Spain；　it　is　everywhere　identical；　and；　when　all　is　said　and　done；　it　is　the　expression　of　the　unconscious　aspirations　and　needs　of　the　race。　　In　each　country　the　average　opinions　of　those　elected　represent　the　genius　of　the　race；　and　they　will　be　found　not　to　alter　sensibly　from　one　generation　to　another。

It　is　seen；　then；　that　we　are　confronted　once　more　by　the　fundamental　notion　of　race；　which　we　have　come　across　so　often；　and　on　this　other　notion；　which　is　the　outcome　of　the　first；　that　institutions　and　governments　play　but　a　small　part　in　the　life　of　a　people。　　Peoples　are　guided　in　the　main　by　the　genius　of　their　race；　that　is；　by　that　inherited　residue　of　qualities　of　which　the　genius　is　the　sum　total。　　Race　and　the　slavery　of　our　daily　necessities　are　the　mysterious　master…causes　that　rule　our　destiny。


CHAPTER　V

PARLIAMENTARY　ASSEMBLIES

Parliamentary　crowds　present　most　of　the　characteristics　common　to　heterogeneous　crowds　that　are　not　anonymousThe　simplicity　of　their　opinionsTheir　suggestibility　and　its　limitsTheir　indestructible；　fixed　opinions　and　their　changed　opinionsThe　reason　of　the　predominance　of　indecisionThe　role　of　the　leadersThe　reason　of　their　prestigeThey　are　the　true　masters　of　an　assembly　whose　votes；　on　that　account；　are　merely　those　of　a　small　minorityThe　absolute　power　they　exerciseThe　elements　of　their　oratorical　artPhrases　and　imagesThe　psychological　necessity　the　leaders　are　under　of　being　in　a　general　way　of　stubborn　convictions　and　narrow…mindedIt　is　impossible　for　a　speaker　without　prestige　to　obtain　recognition　for　his　arguments　The　exaggeration　of　the　sentiments；　whether　good　or　bad；　of　assemblies　At　certain　moments　they　become　automaticThe　sittings　of　the　ConventionCases　in　which　an　assembly　loses　the　characteristics　of　crowdsThe　influence　of　specialists　when　technical　questions　ariseThe　advantages　and　dangers　of　a　parliamentary　system　in　all　countriesIt　is　adapted　to　modern　needs；　but　it　involves　financial　waste　and　the　progressive　curtailment　of　all　libertyConclusion。


In　parliamentary　assemblies　we　have　an　example　of　heterogeneous　crowds　that　are　not　anonymous。　　Although　the　mode　of　election　of　their　members　varies　from　epoch　to　epoch；　and　from　nation　to　nation；　they　present　very　similar　characteristics。　　In　this　case　the　influence　of　the　race　makes　itself　felt　to　weaken　or　exaggerate　the　characteristics　common　to　crowds；　but　not　to　prevent　their　manifestation。　　The　parliamentary　assemblies　of　the　most　widely　different　countries；　of　Greece；　Italy；　Portugal；　Spain；　France；　and　America　present　great　analogies　in　their　debates　and　votes；　and　leave　the　respective　governments　face　to　face　with　identical　difficulties。

Moreover；　the　parliamentary　system　represents　the　ideal　of　all　modern　civilised　peoples。　　The　system　is　the　expression　of　the　idea；　psychologically　erroneous；　but　generally　admitted；　that　a　large　gathering　of　men　is　much　more　capable　than　a　small　number　of　coming　to　a　wise　and　independent　decision　on　a　given　subject。

The　general　characteristics　of　crowds　are　to　be　met　with　in　parliamentary　assemblies：　intellectual　simplicity；　irritability；　suggestibility；　the　exaggeration　of　the　sentiments　and　the　preponderating　influence　of　a　few　leaders。　　In　consequence；　however；　of　their　special　composition　parliamentary　crowds　offer　some　distinctive　features；　which　we　shall　point　out　shortly。

Simplicity　in　their　opinions　is　one　of　their　most　important　characteristics。　　In　the　case　of　all　parties；　and　more　especially　so　far　as　the　Latin　peoples　are　concerned；　an　invariable　tendency　is　met　with　in　crowds　of　this　kind　to　solve　the　most　complicated　social　problems　by　the　simplest　abstract　principles　and　general　laws　applicable　to　all　cases。　　Naturally　the　principles　vary　with　the　party；　but　owing　to　the　mere　fact　that　the　individual　members　are　a　part　of　a　crowd；　they　are　always　inclined　to　exaggerate　the　worth　of　their　principles；　and　to　push　them　to　their　extreme　consequences。　　In　consequence　parliaments　are　more　especially　representative　of　extreme　opinions。

The　most　perfect　example　of　the　ingenuous　simplification　of　opinions　peculiar　to　assemblies　is　offered　by　the　Jacobins　of　the　French　Revolution。　　Dogmatic　and　logical　to　a　man；　and　their　brains　full　of　vague　generalities；　they　busied　themselves　with　the　application　of　fixed…principles　without　concerning　themselves　with　events。　　It　has　been　said　of　them；　with　reason；　that　they　went　through　the　Revolution　without　witnessing　it。　　With　the　aid　of　the　very　simple　dogmas　that　served　them　as　guide；　they　imagined　they　could　recast　society　from　top　to　bottom；　and　cause　a　highly　refined　civilisation　to　return　to　a　very　anterior　phase　of　the　social　evolution。　　The　methods　they　resorted　to　to　realise　their　dream　wore　the　same　stamp　of　absolute　ingenuousness。　　They　confined　themselves；　in　reality；　to　destroying　what　stood　in　their　way。　　All　of　them；　moreoverGirondists；　the　Men　of　the　Mountain；　the　Thermidorians；　&c。were　alike　animated　by　the　same　spirit。

Parliamentary　crowds　are　very　open　to　suggestion；　and；　as　in　the　case　of　all　crowds；　the　suggestion　comes　from　leaders　possessing　prestige；　but　the　suggestibility　of　parliamentary　assemblies　has　very　clearly　defined　limits；　which　it　is　important　to　point　out。

On　all　questions　of　local　or　regional　interest　every　member　of　an　assembly　has　fixed；　unalterable　opinions；　which　no　amount　of　argument　can　shake。　　The　talent　of　a　Demosthenes　would　be　powerless　to　change　the　vote　of　a　Deputy　on　such　questions　as　protection　or　the　privilege　of　distilling　alcohol；　questions　in　which　the　interests　of　influential　electors　are　involved。　　The　suggestion　emanating　from　these　electors　and　undergone　before　the　time　to　vote　arrives；　sufficiently　outweighs　suggestions　from　any　other　source　to　annul　them　and　to　maintain　an　absolute　fixity　of　opinion。＇27＇


＇27＇　The　following　reflection　of　an　English　parliamentarian　of　long　experience　doubtless　applies　to　these　opinions；　fixed　beforehand；　and　rendered　unalterable　by　electioneering　necessities：　　〃During　the　fifty　years　that　I　have　sat　at　Westminster；　I　have　listened　to　thousands　of　speeches；　but　few　of　them　have　changed　my　opinion；　not　one　of　them　has　changed　my　vote。〃



On　general　questionsthe　overthrow　of　a　Cabinet；　the　imposition　of　a　tax；　&c。there　is　no　longer　any　fixity　of　opinion；　and　the　suggestions　of　leaders　can　exert　an　influence；　though　not　in　quite　the　same　way　as　in　an　ordinary　crowd。　　Every　party　has　its　leaders；　who　possess　occasionally　an　equal　influence。　　The　result　is　that　the　Deputy　finds　himself　placed　between　two　contrary　suggestions；　and　is　inevitably　made　to　hesitate。　　This　explains　how　it　is　that　he　is　often　seen　to　vote　in　contrary　fashion　in　an　interval　of　a　quarter　of　an　hour　or　to　add　to　a　law　an　article　which　nullifies　it；　for　instance；　to　withdraw　from　employers　of　labour　the　right　of　choosing　and　dismissing　their　workmen；　and　then　to　very　nearly　annul　this　measure　by　an　amendment。

It　is　for　the　same　reason　that　every　Chamber　that　is　returned　has　some　very　stable　opinions；　and　other　opinions　that　are　very　shifting。　　On　the　whole；　the　general　questions　being　the　more　numerous；　indecision　is　predominant　in　the　Chamberthe　indecision　which　results　from　the　ever…　present　fear　of　the　elector；　the　suggestion　received　from　whom　is　always　latent；　and　tends　to　counterbalance　the　influence　of　the　leaders。

Still；　it　is　the　leaders　who　are　definitely　the　masters　in　those　numerous　discussions；　with　regard　to　the　subject…matter　of　which　the　members　of　an　assembly　are　without　strong　preconceived　opinions。

The　necessity　for　these　leaders　is　evident；　since；　under　the　name　of　heads　of　groups；　they　are　met　with　in　the　assemblies　of　every　country。　　They　are　the　real　rulers　of　an　assembly。　　Men　forming　a　crowd　cannot　do　without　a　master；　whence　it　results　that　the　votes　of　an　assembly　only　represent；　as　a　rule；　the　opinions　of　a　small　minority。

The　influence　of　the　leaders　is　due　in　very　small　measure　to　the　arguments　they　employ；　but　in　a　large　degree　to　their　prestige。　The　best　proof　of　this　is　that；　should　they　by　any　circumstance　lose　their　prestige；　their　influence　disappears。

The　prestige　of　these　political　leaders　is　individual；　and　independent　of　name　or　celebrity：　a　fact　of　which　M。　Jules　Simon　gives　us　some　very　curious　examples　in　his　remarks　on　the　prominent　men　of　the　Assembly　of　1848；　of　which　he　was　a　member：


〃Two　months　before　he　was　all…powerful；　Louis　Napoleon　was　entirely　without　the　least　importance。

〃Victor　Hugo　mounted　the　tribune。　　He　failed　to　achieve　success。　He　was　listened　to　as　Felix　Pyat　was　listened　to；　but　he　did　not　obtain　as　much　applause。　　‘I　don't　like　his　ideas；'　Vaulabelle　said　to　me；　speaking　of　Felix　Pyat；'　but　he　is　one　of　the　greatest　writers　and　the　greatest　orator　of　France。'　　Edgar　Quinet；　in　spite　of　his　exceptional　and　powerful　intelligence；　was　held　in　no　esteem　whatever。　　He　had　been　popular　for　awhile　before　the　opening　of　the　Assembly；　in　the　Assembly　he　had　no　popularity。

〃The　splendour　of　genius