Reviewed by Joseph Jamison
Democracy or Bonapartism: Two Centuries of War on Democracy. By Domenico Losurdo
(Verso, New York, 2024. 338 pp.)
Democracy or Bonapartism: Two Centuries of War on Democracy by Domenico Losurdo is a re-interpretation of 19th and 20th century European political history. The book is a Marxist study of bourgeois democracy through a study of the fate of universal suffrage (the right to vote). The original Italian subtitle was The Triumph and Decay of Universal Suffrage.
The book is organized historically, beginning with the French Revolution, up until the end of the twentieth century. Losurdo begins with a retelling of the story of universal suffrage. Focusing his arguments on 19th century thinkers such as Alexis de Tocqueville, Benjamin Constant and John Stuart Mill, and in the 20th century on such theorists as Friederich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Joseph Schumpeter, he highlights that liberal thinkers were vehemently opposed to income redistribution and land reforms and determined to prevent these from happening through electoral systems.
An understanding of what Losurdo means by “Bonapartism” and “liberalism” is all-important:
In the writings of Marx and Engels, Bonapartism refers to a form of regime in capitalist society in which the executive part of the state, under the rule of one individual, achieves dictatorial power over all other parts of the state and over society….The main instance of this form of regime in Marx’s lifetime was that of Louis Bonaparte, the nephew of Napoleon I, who became Napoleon III after his coup d’etat of 2 December 1851. That episode inspired one of Marx’s most important historical writings, The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. [1]
By liberalism Losurdo means a bourgeois political and social ideology that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. He does not mean liberalism in its conventional, narrower US meaning: moderately progressive reformism.
How the Book Is Organized
Chapter 1, perhaps the most important chapter, is entitled “The Fight for the Vote, a Tortuous and Still-Unfinished History.” Losurdo asserts that there were three fundamental milestones in the conquest of equal universal suffrage: 1) the radicalization of the French Revolution on August 10, 1792 (the storming of the royal palace, overthrow of Louis XVI, and the coming to power of the Jacobins); 2) the outbreak of a new French revolution in February 1848 (the ouster of King Louis Phillippe who reigned 1830-1848); and 3) the revolutions in Russia in 1917 ( where “universal” suffrage finally included the half of the human race that is female). Liberalism had nothing to do with these milestones. Mass struggle, from below, produced them.
Losurdo argues that the liberal narrative dominant in the Western world today —which depicts a triumphant, steady expansion of democracy over the past 200 years through the gradual extension of the suffrage — is a profound myth. Instead, he claims that the introduction of universal (male) suffrage in Europe was not primarily a democratic victory but often a Bonapartist tool used by conservative and authoritarian forces to bypass and suppress popular revolutionary movements, particularly those emerging from the urban working class and radical bourgeoisie.
Losurdo draws a parallel to Karl Marx’s classic analysis[2] of Louis Bonaparte (Napoleon III), who used universal suffrage and plebiscites to create a populist, authoritarian regime that claimed a democratic mandate while serving the interests of the ruling class.
Losurdo extends this concept to modern liberal democracies, arguing that the electoral system is heavily manipulated by immense concentrations of private wealth (campaign financing, media ownership). It creates a political class detached from the populace, where elections become spectacles and choices are limited to pre-approved candidates who manage, rather than challenge, the status quo. This system produces a passive citizenry; it absorbs and neutralizes dissent rather than allowing for genuine popular sovereignty or radical change. He contrasts this with historical examples of what he sees as more substantive attempts at popular rule, including the Paris Commune and the Soviet system in its early years.
Losurdo draws on Marx’s analysis of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoleon III), who, like his uncle, after seizing power in a coup on Dec 2, 1851, used plebiscites and universal male suffrage to create a direct, populist bond with the peasantry and other conservative social classes. This allowed him to present himself as the national savior above class conflict, while effectively dismantling parliamentary democracy and repressing the left. “Louis-Napoleon re-established the universal suffrage that had been abolished by the liberal bourgeoisie’s coup de main” [helping hand][3]
Losurdo’s innovation is to argue that Bonapartism this was not a uniquely French phenomenon. He demonstrates how this model was consciously adopted and adapted by conservative statesmen across Europe—like Bismarck in Germany and Disraeli in Britain—as a strategic weapon. He contends there were parallel ways in which democracy was restricted in the US. “A strong or very strong executive found its legitimacy in a popular investiture that was expressed either by plebiscite or by an electoral suffrage that was broad and in any case, considerably more extensive than in the past….In this sense America produced a soft Bonapartism…”[4] While there are specific differences in the American and French cases, what they had in common was a very strong executive arm, leading to a unity of the decision-making center.
On Bismarck and Disraeli, Losurdo observes:
“Disraeli — who at least as far as foreign policy was concerned compared Bismarck to Bonaparte—did have some traits in common with the German chancellor and with Louis-Napoleon himself. Bypassing the liberal bourgeoisie, all three directly addressed the masses to whom they granted suffrage to a greater or lesser extent, and whose support they gained or tried to gain by making concessions on the level of economic and social policy, stimulating national and chauvinistic excitement, and on this basis building up the cult of the super partes [impartial] charismatic leader, undisputed interpreter and leader of the nation. [5]
Napoleon I (1799-1815) and Napoleon III (1848-1870)[6] both practiced “Bonapartism.” Napoleon I, the conqueror of most of continental Europe, used plebiscites to consolidate his rule. He organized a plebiscite for the Constitution of the Year VIII (1800); a plebiscite to approve his Consulate for Life (1802); and a plebiscite to create the hereditary Empire (1804). During the Hundred Days (1815) he organized a plebiscite for The Acte Additionnel (1815). Similarly, Napoleon III used a plebiscite in 1851 to extend his presidency; in 1852 to restore the imperial throne; and a final plebiscite in 1870 to approve liberal reforms.
The ruling classes, thus, did not grant suffrage out of benevolence or a belief in democratic principles. They did it to disarm more radical demands (like social revolution, republicanism, or the Charter (pushed by the British Chartists) and to channel popular discontent into manageable electoral channels that they could ultimately control.
Extending the vote to the rural masses (e.g., the peasantry) was often calculated to create a conservative electoral bloc that would counterbalance and outvote the more progressive, and potentially revolutionary, urban worker populations.
Losurdo asserts, then, that universal suffrage has a dual, contradictory nature: it can be Bonapartist if used as a tool of authoritarianism, manipulation, and social control. And it can be potentially democratic when seized by organized socialist, workers’, and radical movements, to become a genuine instrument for social emancipation and popular sovereignty. The history of the 19th century, in his view, is the struggle between these two opposing uses of the same institution.
Universal suffrage began with the great French Revolution (1789-99). The Jacobin constitution of June 24, 1793 stipulated universal direct (male) suffrage. Jacobin leader Maximilien Robespierre condemned the restriction of political rights on the basis of property qualifications, deeming this in contravention of the Declaration of the Rights of Man.” After Thermidor — the July 1794 turn to the right in the French Revolution and the defeat of the Jacobins – the liberal bourgeoisie faced a dilemma. It clung to the representative system insofar as it opposed absolutism and feudalism but it had to stop political representation from granting overly powerful influence to the popular masses. Accordingly, property qualifications for voting came back, as did regressive taxation.
Losurdo argues that political evolution in the US had many parallels with European political developments. The influence went in both directions. The US has seen its own coup d’ états. The 1787 Philadelphia Constitutional Convention was itself a “Federalist coup d’etat” and greatly exceeded its original mandate; it was authorized to modify the Articles of Confederation. Instead, it drafted a whole new constitution characterized by a strong executive presidency, capable in a crisis of restricting democracy and exercising almost dictatorial powers, as Lincoln did in 1861-1865. “On both sides of the Atlantic, the revolution ended in the rise of Bonapartist tendencies.”[7]
In Chapter 3 “An Alternative to Property Qualifications: the Origins of Bonapartism, from America to France” Losurdo examines the drafting of the United States Constitution, arguing that the decisive event leading to its creation was Shays’ Rebellion of 1786-1787 in western Massachusetts – an armed uprising against the state government’s efforts to raise taxes. It had a monumental impact, shaping the Constitution’s focus on preventing similar rebellions in the future. This pushed the Philadelphia convention to create a strong executive presidency,[8] which has only become stronger over time.
The Main Thesis
Losurdo’s thesis is that the path to modern democracy was not a linear progression but a bloody, contradictory class battle. He proposes that universal suffrage has a dual, contradictory nature: Bonapartist, i.e., its use as a tool of authoritarianism, manipulation, and social control and democratic, its potential, when seized by organized socialist, workers’, and radical movements, to become a genuine instrument for social emancipation and popular sovereignty.
The history of the 19th century, in his view, is the struggle between these two opposing uses of the same institution. Therefore, the book’s title, “Democracy or Bonapartism” presents a fundamental choice: universal suffrage can serve one of these two masters. The book’s historical analysis shows how, for much of the 19th century, it served the latter.
To restrict democracy, bourgeois thinkers have advocated property qualifications; a tiered electoral system (like the US Electoral College in presidential elections); plural voting (in which some groups have more votes than others, an arrangement which existed in Britain until after the Second World War); promotion of single-candidate constituencies and opposition to proportional representation; and in the United States, where property qualifications have disappeared, racial discrimination (e.g., poll taxes, and prohibitive voter registration laws) is used to prevent Blacks from voting. The mid-century Voting Rights Act (1965), a triumph of the civil rights movement, was eviscerated by the US Supreme Court in the case Shelby County vs. Holder (2013). In our day Trump continues to campaign against mail-in voting aimed at increasing voter turnout and he presses for even more extreme gerrymandering to strengthen right-wing candidates. On the right, throughout the capitalist West, there is a deep-rooted historical pressure to deny full representation to all.
One key aspect of Bonapartism is that Louis-Napoleon re-established universal suffrage while sharing a common sentiment with bourgeois thinkers – a disdain for social emancipation. Instead of curbing suffrage, Louis decided to invoke the concept of a nation, positioning himself as its interpreter. This new reality portrayed masses as ‘childlike’ and in need of discipline, a responsibility which fell to the supreme representative of the nation. The fact that this representative was also the heir to military splendor caused it to be easily exported around the world, including Germany and the USA.
In Chapter 5, “the Bonapartist Regime’s Baptism of Fire,” with the advent of the First World War, the crucial features of war were an enormous extension of executive powers. Losurdo refers to the harsh methods used against socialists in the United States after the war, the centralization of power, and the economic crises which gave a further impetus to a “soft Bonapartism.” Technology like the radio allowed direct addresses to the nation. This period also saw the consolidation of ‘Americanism’ in the United States, which allowed for expulsion of unwelcome ideologies, reaching a fever pitch following the October Revolution. The author describes fascism as a form of “total-war Bonapartism … managed with unprecedented brutality.”[9]
Losurdo traces Bonapartist trends into the post-World War II world and subsequent attempts to limit suffrage through an examination of the writings of theorists such as Friederich Hayek and Karl Popper.
Losurdo sees the 20th century as beginning and ending with victories for soft Bonapartism. This involves the consolidation of the superiority of the American model and at its centre, the president of the United States. In his final chapter, Chapter 8, “The Triumph of Soft Bonapartism,” he states
Soft Bonapartism constitutes a regime not only by virtue of the orderly and painless succession from one leader to the next, but also because competition develops on the basis of an essentially unified platform common to the various candidates competing for the office of the nation’s supreme leader and interpreter. This is particularly the case in the United States.[10]
Losurdo concludes,
In the last two centuries, the emancipation process wrested universal equal suffrage (one person, one vote); demanded proportional representation in the name of equal representative value of each vote; challenged the monopoly, however configured or disguised of representative bodies by wealth; connected political rights with social and economic ones; and saw and celebrated democracy as the emancipation of classes, “races, ” and peoples held in a subaltern condition. Today this process seems to have suffered a serious setback, in this sense we are witnessing a phase of dis-emancipation. Similar such phases have marked democracy’s long and tortuous path through its history. But as far as the current one is concerned, the end is not yet in sight.[11]
Conclusion
This reviewer, initially skeptical of the usefulness of describing all the ways the anti-democratic right has attempted to restrict bourgeois democracy as “Bonapartism,” concluded that Losurdo has made a plausible case for his use of the term.
Democracy or Bonapartism presents the fundamental choice: universal suffrage can serve one of these two. The book’s historical analysis shows how, for much of the 19th and 20th century, it served the latter. The book debunks liberal mythology. It provides a powerful historical materialist critique that exposes the undemocratic underside of capitalist democracy. The book, finally, forces a re-examination of deeply held assumptions about what democracy is and how it functions under capitalism.
The book’s Foreword by Luciano Canfora, an Italian professor of Classics is unusually perceptive. Contemporaries, both Canfora and Losurdo were intellectuals of the Italian left. Canfora contends that Losurdo’s main legacy consists above all in the books he published from 1993 until his death in 2018, tackling the major issues for Marxists posed by the disastrous events of 1989-91. Canfora maintains, “It was as if we were witnessing a new Restoration,” a reference to 1815 and the definitive end of an earlier revolutionary era in Europe. In 1989-91 for upholders of socialism “the expectation of a fullness of time instead suddenly receded, causing an almost unbearable trauma for those who had dedicated their lives to that cause.” Canfora adds, “Losurdo grasped that it was time to understand what had happened…This is especially true of the period starting in 1993, a year in which he produced two texts Democracy or Bonapartism and Marx and the Historical Balance Sheet of the 20th Century.”
One by one, the works of Losurdo are being translated. In 1993 he wrote Democracy or Bonapartism; in 1998 War and Revolution, Rethinking the Twentieth Century; Nietzsche: Aristocratic Rebel in 2002; Liberalism: A Counter-history in 2005; Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend in 2008; The Class Struggle: A Political and Philosophical History in 2013; Western Marxism in 2017.[12]
Losurdo, a Communist militant his whole adult life, was a professor of philosophy and history at the University of Urbino and author of over 50 books. He died in 2018 at the age of 76. Losurdo was a writer of immense erudition. In this book, as in his others, the author’s range of sources is vast. There is a useful index.
________________________________________________
[1] Definition of “Bonapartism” in a Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Tom Bottomore, Ralph Miliband, eds. Harvard University Press, 1983.
[2] The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. In the French revolutionary calendar the 18th Brumaire was Nov. 9th 1799, the date when the first Napoleon seized power. By choosing this title, Marx was comparing the nephew’s coup d’état which took place on Dec. 2, 1851 with his uncle’s coup d’état.
[3] Democracy or Bonapartism p. 49
[4] Ibid., p. 114.
[5] Ibid,, p. 66-67.
[6] There was a Napoleon II, the son of Napoleon I and Marie Louise of Austria. He never ruled. He died at age 21 in 1832.
[7] Ibid., p. 102.
[8] A point on which Marxist historian Herbert Aptheker agreed. See his The Early Years of the Republic p. 36.
[9] Ibid., p. 186.
[10] Ibid., p. 295.
[11] Ibid. p. 325.
[12] Though not in order. Democracy or Bonapartism, written in 1993 was not translated until 2024. Still untranslated are: Marx and the Historical Balance Sheet of the Twentieth Century (1993); Historical Revisionism: Problems and Myths (1996); USSR: Balance Sheet of an Experience (1993-1997); Escape from History? (1999); Language of Empire, Lexicon of the American Empire (2005); and The Absent Left (2014).
