Between natural and political rights: competing views in revolutionary France

The paper distinguishes between three positions concerning the relationship between natural and political rights as articulated during the French Revolution. The first, termed here the discontinuity view and associated with Abbé Sieyès, regards the two types of rights as distinct but not antagonistic. This perspective affirms the importance of political rights, viewing them as instrumental in safeguarding natural rights within society – a function best fulfilled by representative government. The second position, referred to as the reinforcement view and attributed to the Marquis de Condorcet, posits that political rights are a subset of natural rights. This conceptual continuity serves to justify a robust regime of political rights and a strong democratic order that blends elements of representative and direct democracy. The third position, dubbed the antagonism view and ascribed to the later writings of Robespierre and Saint-Just, assumes that natural and political rights are in conflict. According to this perspective, natural rights can obstruct the development of political rights, thereby justifying a non-democratic regime wherein political decision-making is entrusted to a narrow revolutionary vanguard. This paper examines the underlying concept of natural rights that informs each of these three perspectives.