How succesfull was domestic policy of Napoleon III?
All was going well for Louis Bonaparte when he sat on the throne of France. It seemed that the lack of military genious that his uncle enjoed was replaced with the economic prosperity of the country which came with the affection of providence at the same time when he took his position as the Emperor of France. But overall, Napoleon III had an aim to maintatin his status quo, so according to that he change the features of his domestic policies from authotorian to liberal.
These changes resoult mainly in succes. Aspects that changed in accordance to the transition of his ideology was, for example, the relationship with the Church. Napoleon knew that he would need the suport of the Church to approve his coup d'etat. The Legitimists among the clerigy view the Empire as a more Catholic friendly enviroment, and wealthy Catholics thought that the Emperor will, if suported, ensure prosperity for cleregy and religion from which Catholics of all social ranks will have benefits. Therefore, it is clear that the relationship during the reign of Napoleon III was largly pragmatic. Latter on, Napoleon tried to decrease the influence of Church in politics and familly lifes, but in the same time use clerigy as a tool to diminish the imapact of the press. I think this was succesfull because more room was left to people who specialised in economic and social matters and were, therefore more appropriatte for the course of development of the country. Also education became more succesfull as it was taken out of the Church's hands.
This was met by great opposition of the Church. But Catholics were not the only one who opposed the regim. Sure, Napoleon tried to choose staff from the center right to avoid political conflict and also none of his policies went too far to the right or to the left, or even when they did leened to one side like in the case when he refused to recognise new Roman Rebublic, he would reedem himself by asking for concession. This reflects the successfulnes of a very well manipulated political activity. But latter in to the years the oppostion did grew and it was harder for Napoleon to mantain his position. Abandonment of protectionism increased the strength of opposition. Big landowners and industrialists opposed this because they were scared of the foreign competition and also this ment that they had to lower their prices in order to survive in the market. A large number of small firms was forced to close, and also general level of wages went down what caused distress among people. But although it caused political resantments it definitely had more positive effects to it. Firms were forced to rebuilt their factories, so the working conditions were largly improved, and country started exporting more. Overall it was a healthy stimulans. On the economic terms, his relationship with Saint-Simonians was very productive as they founded a new type of banking institution which enabled more investment in industrialisation and also helped the economic development.
In order to put of the influence of the opposition, in 1860 he made concilations to the other main body, the Left. He tried to pursue more liberal reforms in order to convert people to Bonapartism, but it had an opposite effect, it made them more secure and persistant. These changes were definitelly political triumph, although they were inforced only because Emperor tried to win over people by increasing thir freedom. Proof for this is that more than 7 million plebiscite voted yes for changes. But still, the half of million people that voted no shouldnt be neglected, as that is a big number to consider, so maybi this was a suggestion that his reforms came a bit too late to recover his dynasti. Both of the Left and Right opposition re-formed what was a big set back for Napoleon who wished to destroy them. He was faced with double opposition in the parliament and the empires strength weakend in 1860's.
The fact is that Napoleon had a lot of luck. The gold rush in California and latter in Australia increased the European money supply what helped in improving France's economic position. It is true that Napoleon had is objectives on the right place, and that the rebuilt of the railways and infrastructure helped largly in positioning France in better trade position and by that ensuring it economic prosperity. He rightly assumed that the deficit which occured as a resloult of those investment would pay itself by profits at the end of the day.
Overall, I think that Napoleon fullfilled the hopes of those who voted yes in 1851 and 1852, and that the whole regime, and therefore his domestic policies, were more appretiated than those of his predecassors. But on the other hand it might be said that thanks to plebiscites and elections by universal sufferage he succeded in mainaining an illusion of popular sovereignity over the years. The economic prosperity continued itself until 1860, when a change in economic policy in accordance with the set-backs in his foreign policy caused France's internal instability. But there is no doubt that durning the Napoleon III France's reputation stood higher than ever.