1. A truly revolutionary document for its time
For its time and place, late 18th century France, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen
(August 26, 1789) was truly a revolutionary document. This declaration was a programmatic statement with
strong classically liberal influences that set forth basic ideas such as citizenship, sovereignty, nationhood,
and rights in just seventeen provisions. The revolutionary nature of the declaration lies in those principles,
which are irreconcilable with those of an absolute monarchy such as the French Ancien Regime. In the
process, it established the founding principles of the modern French nation-state. Broadly and bluntly
speaking, then, the declaration as a whole was revolutionary. Historical context matters, as Chrétien-
François de Lamoignon (1735-1789) indicates in his speech on the principles of the French monarchy.
According to extracts from Lamoignon’s speech, absolutism and divine right are the
guiding principles for the monarchy. The first principle, “sovereign power in his kingdom
belongs to the king alone,” is indicative of absolute monarchy. Divine right, which justified
absolute rule, is evident in the second principle, “that he is accountable only to God for the
exercise of supreme power.” Lamoignon also touches on the “indissoluble” link between king
and nation. All of these notions characterize the nature of the French monarchy – an absolutist
regime that relied on theological justifications for its existence and which had a corporatist
perspective of the country and society (as expressed, furthermore, by the First, Second, and Third
Estates). The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen overturned all of these ideas.
The declaration’s first article says, “Men are born free and remain equal in rights. Social
distinctions may only be based on common usefulness”. The words “free”, “equal”, and “rights”
are important -- they establish the idea of citizenship in article one. Articles two, four, and five
expand on that idea, in which rights include “liberty, property, security, and resistance to
oppression” (article two); “liberty consists in being able to do anything that is not harmful to
others”, therefore allowing all citizens to exercise their rights (article four); and “the law has the
right only to forbid acts that are harmful to society”, which in a way echoes the fourth article
given that such legal prohibitions are meant to ensure the rights of all citizens and “society”
consists of fellow citizens (article five). Furthermore, articles three and six elaborate on the
nature of law in revolutionary France. Article six says that “the law is the expression of the
general will”. The “general will” is that of all the citizens who make up the nation. Here, article
three comes in, “The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation”. These two
articles point to a collective of free and equal individuals known as citizens. That collective was
to develop and live by a legal system that respects and enforces citizens’ rights.
This conception of law appears to be in keeping with democratic and republican notions
of government, which makes articles twelve, thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen relevant. Article
twelve says, “Guaranteeing the rights of man and the citizen necessitates a public force: thus this
force is instituted for the benefit of all, and not for the individual use of those to whom it is
entrusted”. That public force is a government, a state, which recognizes citizenship and rights
and enforces a system of laws. Articles thirteen, fourteen and fifteen outline the state’s need for
taxation in order to operate and the right of citizens to audit the use of that tax money, thus
exemplifying state accountability to citizens and the partial realization of democratic and
republican ideas.

2. The declaration’s articles represent ideas of citizenship, rights, and national sovereignty.
These concepts are also intimately related foundations. The result is a framework for a nation-
state beholden to the collective will and rights of its citizens, which exists in stark contrast with
the idea of political power in the hands of a monarch with divine approval. Given the historical
context, the former as represented by the declaration proved to be a revolutionary proposition. As
Professor Peter McPhee notes in video clip 2.5, 8:58 to 9:06, it was the “blueprint for a new
society, a new polity”.