Does the French Revolution show that people can be trusted to govern themselves?

The French Revolution of 1789 ushered in ten years of chaos, violence, and- ultimately- a Bonapartist monarchy equivalent to that of the House of Bourbon the revolution sought to overthrow. While the revolutionary epoch in France set that nation on course for an eventual democracy, and introduced important concepts such as those found in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, its immediate objective of introducing popular governance was a short-term failure.
However, conclusions as to whether or not the French Revolution is an example of counterexample of the efficacy of self-governance must be examined in the light of the situation found in France in the late 18th century. In contrast to the American War of Independence, in which rebelling colonists had experience with self-governance that grew out of the English tradition, French revolutionaries had no such background. Indeed, in North America, colonists enjoyed experience with many of the hallmarks of the modern liberal democracy which include, not just voting, but also rule of law and the protection of individual liberties. The continued application of these last two ideals in the American context may have served as a hedge against the manifestation of excesses such as those that occurred in France during the Reign of Terror.
In their important, 1963 text The Civic Culture, Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba argue that an existing "culture of consensus and diversity" is critical to effective and judicious self-governance. The immediate failure of the French Revolution, therefore, does not necessarily prove that people are incapable of self-governance, but it does suggest that certain social and cultural criteria must be present for its effective realization.