In theory, revolution against a monarch seems to be a conceptually sound idea. When people are oppressed they resolve to revolt in order to overcome their oppression. The problem with Sieyes’ argument is that he resolves to completely eliminate a privileged order. Unfortunately, privilege is in some ways inevitable and without a recognition of privilege revolution will likely be unsuccessful. The idea that the third estate should receive fair and equal representation is an admirable one, but Sieyes takes it to an extreme.

Moreover, Sieyes does not outline a concrete plan of action that the third estate should take in order to achieve a successful revolution. He also doesn’t discuss how exactly one can eliminate privilege. Without addressing some of these considerations his suggestions are incomplete and potentially hazardous. It is easy to find problems with the current system, but much harder to reengineer a superior system from the ashes of the old system.

I think Sieyes has a solid foundation for an argument. I think that the French Revolution was founded on good ideals, but lacked direction and focus. If we are to take Sieyes argument at its word, the revolution was a failure because it did not create fair and equal representation and just established a new kind of monarchy. There are many reasons why the revolution was not successful, but I think one of the main causes was this lack of strategic planning and focus on eliminating privilege. In contrast, the American Revolution had a very solid planning structure in the constitution conventions and also was run largely by the privileged elite, so eliminating privilege was not a central principle. This is a much more successful way of creating a new government.

A massive National debt, high and unfair taxation and an inresponsive government.