Thousands of people took to the streets, united in protest against their king. Teachers, union members, civil servants, and countless other representatives of the middle class joined the protests. “Down with the king,” they shouted, “down with the government,” and “long live the reforms.” That king, Louis Philippe, had come to power in 1830 with the promise as ‘king of the French’ to give his people more freedom, equality and fraternity.
But he had not kept that promise, on the contrary. Half a century after the French Revolution, less than 1 percent of the male population had the right to vote. Although the king was a less noble snob than his predecessor, he surrounded himself with a new court of financial aristocrats: bankers, railway barons, major shareholders, stock exchange magnates and wealthy landowners. Little had come of the promised civil liberties, land reforms and job creation projects. The right to vote was only available if you paid sky-high excise taxes and owned extensive lands. Moreover, the income and wealth gap was only widening due to the economic crisis. Parliamentarians who asked questions about this were told by the king’s hated minister, Guizot, that if they wanted to participate, they would first have to “enrich themselves” (“enrichissez-vous“) When the government also tried to arrest the organizers of some public meetings on February 22, 1848, things went into overdrive.
Karl Marx, who witnessed the revolutions of 1848 in Germany, initially saw the demonstrations as a hopeful first battle won. But when the protests did not bring about the desired revolution, but helped the old ruler (Frederick Wilhelm IV) or a new authoritarian ruler (Napoleon III) into the saddle, he uttered his famous sigh: “Hegel [de grote filosoof en Marx’ leermeester] once noted that all major world historical events and personalities appear, as it were, twice. He only forgot to add that the first time they do it as a tragedy, but the second time as a farce.”
What Marx did not see coming is that history can repeat itself more than twice. And that it could be worse than a farce. Because in 2025, ‘No kings’ protests will be organized again. Once again, thousands of people are pouring into the streets to protest against a corrupt head of state and his cabal of shady financiers and arrogant ministers. But last weekend’s protests in the United States, and in particular the response from ‘the King’ himself, had left Karl Marx baffled. After all, America was the shining example for the demonstrators of 1848. The revolution of 1848 was triggered when the king banned a public banquet in honor of George Washington’s birthday. In 2025, however, it was the American president who had himself portrayed in an AI video as a king who bombed the demonstrators with feces in a fighter plane (no one could have ever predicted this).
Populist leaders of the 21st century are not monarchs clinging to a crumbling form of legitimacy
Nowadays there are kings in power who care even less about the fate of the population than in 1789, 1830 or 1848. In 1848, even the most authoritarian monarchs were inclined (or forced) to introduce a better constitution, reforms, lower taxes and more civil liberties. They still clung to an appearance of legitimacy, whether it was a legitimacy ‘of God’s grace’, a constitutional sovereignty or a parliamentary monarchy.
It is sometimes suggested that we are back in the nineteenth century. That we are once again dealing with leaders who think in terms of realpolitik and spheres of influence, who want to revive the Monroe Doctrine and behave like enlightened princes who are surrounded by cheering crowds. Anyone who watches videos of Putin, Bolsonaro, Erdogan, Trump, Orbán or Abascal might initially come up with that thought. Christopher Clark writes in his magisterial study Revolutionary Spring about the revolutions of 1848 that “historians must resist the temptation to see themselves in the inhabitants of the past,” but that when he wrote his book he was “struck by the thought that the people of 1848 would recognize themselves in us.”
The latter may apply to the demonstrators of that time. But certainly not for the monarchs. Karl Marx would immediately refute any suggestion of such an agreement between the monarchs of 1848 and the self-crowned kings of today. Populist leaders of the 21st century are not protagonists in a tragedy. Not even in a farce. They are not monarchs who cling to a declining form of legitimacy. They are not monarchs who are anxiously looking for a way to please or accommodate their people.
At least Louis Philippe, the King of France, had the decency to abdicate when he learned that deploying the national reserve forces against the demonstrators would result in thousands of deaths. He ultimately prioritized the lives of his subjects over his own interests in power, and retired in England.
With Trump, and the populist leaders (yes, even those of populist parties in democratic countries) with him, we are not even back to square one almost two centuries after the revolutions of 1830/1848. It’s much worse. Constitutions could still be negotiated with the kings of old. These are robber captains for whom it is enrichissez-vous only concerns themselves.
The only question is what a revolution should look like if the people continue to follow such robbers.
NEW: Give this item as a gift
As an NRC subscriber you can subscribe every month 10 items give as a gift to someone without an NRC subscription. The recipient can read the article directly, without a paywall.