Parliamentary Assemblies explained

What happens

Themes in this chapter

• Psychology of Crowds

  Parliamentary assemblies are analyzed as a specific type of heterogeneous crowd, exhibiting impulsiveness, suggestibility, and exaggerated sentiments.

• Leadership and Suggestion

  The chapter emphasizes the preponderating influence of leaders with prestige, who dominate assemblies through suggestion and narrow-minded conviction.

• Irrationality and Credulity

  Assemblies are shown to be highly suggestible, often voting against their own interests and adopting extreme positions without rational deliberation.

• Social Change and Revolution

  The French Revolution is used as a key example of how parliamentary crowds can drive radical social change through automatic and unconscious behavior.

Characters to notice

• Crowds

  Parliamentary assemblies are analyzed as a type of heterogeneous crowd, exhibiting characteristics such as intellectual simplicity, irritability, suggestibility, and exaggerated sentiments.

• The Speaker

  The speaker's success in a parliamentary assembly depends almost solely on prestige, not arguments; a speaker without prestige fails to gain attention or influence votes.

• Robespierre

  Cited as an example of a leader with narrow intellect and strong conviction who exercised great influence; his speeches are described as incoherent yet powerful due to his prestige.

• Taine

  Quoted to describe the unconscious and automatic behavior of the Convention, where members voted for measures they held in horror, including the murder of friends.

• Napoleon

  Mentioned in the context of the power of leaders; the text notes that Napoleon understood the psychology of crowds and the importance of prestige.

• Davoust

  Referenced as a leader who, like Napoleon, understood the psychology of crowds and the role of prestige in influencing assemblies.

• Barras

  Mentioned in the context of the Convention's automatic behavior and the influence of leaders during the French Revolution.

• M. Jules Simon

  Quoted to illustrate the exaggerated sentiments and changeableness of parliamentary assemblies, describing their tendency to swing between extremes.

Key passages

• “Parliamentary crowds present most of the characteristics common to heterogeneous crowds that are not anonymous—The simplicity of their opinions—Their suggestibility and its limits—Their indestructible, fixed opinions and their changed opinions—The reason of the predominance of indecision—The role of the leaders—The reason of their prestige—They are the true masters of an assembly whose votes, on that account, are merely those of a small minority—The absolute power they exercise—The elements of their oratorical art—Phrases and images—The psychological necessity the leaders are under of being in a general way of stubborn convictions and narrow-minded—It is impossible for a speaker without prestige to obtain recognition for his arguments—The exaggeration of the sentiments, whether good or bad, of assemblies—At certain moments they become automatic—The sittings of the Convention—Cases in which an assembly loses the characteristics of crowds—The influence of specialists when technical questions arise—The advantages and dangers of a parliamentary system in all countries—It is adapted to modern needs; but it involves financial waste and the progressive curtailment of all liberty—Conclusion.”

  Parliamentary assemblies are a type of non-anonymous crowd that share common crowd traits: simple opinions, suggestibility, fixed views on local issues but changeable on general ones, and domination by leaders with prestige. Leaders, who are often narrow-minded and stubborn, control the assembly, and their oratory relies on phrases and images. Without prestige, a speaker cannot gain recognition. Assemblies exaggerate sentiments and can become automatic, as seen in the French Convention. On technical matters, specialists may reduce crowd behavior. The parliamentary system has both advantages (adaptability) and dangers (financial waste and loss of liberty).

  This summary encapsulates the chapter's main arguments about parliamentary crowds, their characteristics, leadership dynamics, and the dual nature of the parliamentary system.

• “The general characteristics of crowds are to be met with in parliamentary assemblies: intellectual simplicity, irritability, suggestibility, the exaggeration of the sentiments and the preponderating influence of a few leaders.”

  Parliamentary assemblies exhibit the same fundamental traits as other crowds: simple thinking, quick temper, high suggestibility, extreme emotions, and control by a small number of leaders.

  This paraphrase highlights the core crowd psychology applied to parliamentary settings.

• “In consequence parliaments are more especially representative of extreme opinions.”

  Because of crowd dynamics, parliaments tend to reflect and amplify extreme views rather than moderate ones.

  This captures the idea that crowd influence pushes assemblies toward radical positions.

• “The most perfect example of the ingenuous simplification of opinions peculiar to assemblies is offered by the Jacobins of the French Revolution.”

  The Jacobins during the French Revolution are the clearest example of how assemblies oversimplify complex issues into rigid dogmas.

  This illustrates the tendency of assemblies to adopt simplistic, absolute principles.

• “Parliamentary crowds are very open to suggestion; and, as in the case of all crowds, the suggestion comes from leaders possessing prestige; but the suggestibility of parliamentary assemblies has very clearly defined limits, which it is important to point out.”

  Parliamentary crowds are highly suggestible, especially to leaders with prestige, but this suggestibility is limited on local or regional issues where members have fixed opinions.

  This distinguishes between general and local issues in terms of susceptibility to suggestion.

• “When parliamentary assemblies reach a certain pitch of excitement they become identical with ordinary heterogeneous crowds, and their sentiments in consequence present the peculiarity of being always extreme.”

  When highly excited, parliamentary assemblies behave like any other crowd, displaying extreme emotions and actions, whether heroic or destructive.

  This describes the transformation of assemblies into typical crowds under emotional intensity.