Dictatorship in History and Theory: Bonapartism, Caesarism, and Totalitarianism (review)

Bringing together historians and political theorists, Dictatorship in Theory and History traces the evolution of the terms "Bonapartism," "Caesarism," "dictatorship," and "totalitarianism" in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The emphasis throughout is on fundamental disagreements about the meanings of these often politically salient but always highly contested terms—including whether the two Napoleons represent a uniquely French, a distinctly modern, and a specifically military phenomenon, whether they constituted the end or the fulfillment of the Revolution, what kinds of domination was involved in their rule, and even whether they created similar or different types of regimes. At the same time, the terms are held together by a curious and troubling combination of authoritarian and popular politics and the power that Napoleon and Caesar themselves hold over our imaginations.

Dictatorship coheres remarkably well for an edited volume precisely because it is about a plurality of meanings. The chapters progress from Napoleon I's coup d'état to the reactions of German conservatives; to Alexis de Tocqueville and Karl Marx; to Napoleon III's surprising contributions to local government and democratic citizenship; to Max Weber, Antonio Gramsci, and Carl Schmitt; to parallels with Charles de Gaulle; and finally to the gradual decline of the terms "Bonapartism" and "Caesarism" by way of Arendt's theory of totalitarianism. ¹ In a puzzling violation of an otherwise chronological sequence, the volume ends with two excellent chapters that link shifts in the meaning of dictatorship in Rome to changing uses of Caesarism in later European history, topics that might have better served as a bridge between the historical Caesar and Napoleon I. The discussion of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century British fears of Caesarism in the second of these chapters also raises questions about its relationship to a fear of oriental despotism that merit further exploration, as well as underscoring the book's overwhelming emphasis on French and German concerns. The upshot is that although much remains to be said on the topic, this book has much to say.

Aside from addressing specific topics of interest to historians, Dictatorship succeeds in addressing the concerns of political theory. The very slipperiness of the terms in question seems to inspire re-evaluations of classic theorists, forcing reconsideration of such issues as the status of "The Eighteenth Brumaire" in Marx's writings, the political origins of Weber's "charisma," and Gramsci's relationship to Marx. ² Simultaneously, the intimate relationship between dictatorship and constitutionalism, particularly of dictatorship in defense of constitutionalism, is a recurring theme clearly worth examining in greater depth.

Although more about political theory than political science, this book is relevant for students of comparative democratization as well. The long "First Wave" of nineteenth-century democratization encompasses a period in which most European countries fell uncomfortably between traditional systems of rule and modern representative democracy. Nineteenth-century France offers particularly difficult problems of regime classification, as indicated by the great difficulty that many classic studies of democratization have in accounting for its uneven journey to the Fifth Republic. ³ The essays in this volume serve to highlight some of the conceptual issues at stake and, especially in the discussion of Napoleon III's contributions to French democracy, suggest an incrementalist solution to the problem of nineteenth-century democratic development.