American Minute with Bill Federer
Montesquieu: 3 Types of Governments & What Makes Them Work
|
|
Society ... must repose on principles that do not change" -- wrote
Montesquieu
,
The Spirit of the Laws,
1748, Book 24.
Montesquieu
was a French political philosopher whose books were read by Catherine the Great of Russia, praised in England, and banned by Louis XV of France.
He greatly influenced America's founders, with
Thomas Jefferson
even translating
Destutt de Tracy's Commentary on Montesquieu,
August 12, 1810.
|
|
In 1984, the
American Political Review
published an article titled
"The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late 18th-Century American Political Thought,"
written by
Donald S. Lutz
of the University of Houston, and
Charles S. Hyneman.
After reviewing nearly 15,000 items written between 1760 and 1805,
Lutz
and
Hyneman
discovered that
the writers of the Constitution quoted Montesquieu more than any other source, except the Bible.
|
|
Montesquieu
divided governments into
three categories,
and described what
motivating force
each relied upon.
He called the
motivating force
a
"spring,"
as in the internal workings of a wind-up clock:
- Republics, most prevalent in northern European Protestant countries, relied on moral Virtue;
- Monarchs, most prevalent in southern and western European Catholic countries, relied on Honor and Shame; and
- Despots, most prevalent in Islamic countries, relied on Pleasure and Fear. The Muslim Sultan Balban of Delhi, India (1266–1286) declared: "Fear of the governing power ... is the basis of all good government."
|
|
Just as man is a three-fold being with a
spirit, mind,
and
body,
so do
republics, monarchies,
and
despotisms
have
three different motivations.
- The motivating spring in a republic is virtue, which is more in the spiritual realm. Citizens exercise more self-control when they are aware that they will be rewarded or punished in the next life.
- The motivating spring in a monarchy is honor and shame, which are more in the realm of the mind -- mental and emotional rewards or punishments. Saul Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals, 1971, of the motivating power of shame: "ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
- The motivating spring in a despotism is pleasure and fear, which is more physical realm. If one obeys the Sultan, they can be rewarded with a harem, and if one offends the Sultan, they may lose their hand or their head.
|
|
"Politics"
is derived from the Greek word
"polis,"
which means
"city."
Politics
is
the business of the city.
"Citizen"
is a Greek word which means
"co-ruler."
Where
kings
and
despots
have
"subjects"
who are
subjected to their will, democracies
and
republics
have
"citizens"
who are
"co-rulers."
A "popular government"
is where the
"population"
of
citizens
govern themselves.
|
|
A
"democracy"
is a
"popular government"
where
"citizens"
rule themselves by being
personally present
at the city government meetings.
As a form of government,
"democracies"
have only ever worked on a
small, city-wide basis,
where
every citizen was physically present everyday
at the city meetings.
Any larger than a city,
democracies ceased to function,
as everyone can not logistically be present everyday.
(During the Cold War, the word
"democracy"
came to have a second, more generalized meaning of a
"popular government.")
|
|
A
"republic,"
is
a
"popular government"
where citizens rule themselves through
"representatives"
who attend the government meetings in their place.
This allowed
"republics"
to function over
larger areas,
such as
nations.
In
Montesquieu's
definition of the popular government of a
"republic,"
each citizen acts as a co-king, being conscious of the fact that each will be held individually accountable to God, who wants them to be fair. This results in citizens having moral and virtuous behavior.
Montesquieu
described a
"monarch"
as
a king with strings attached,
being limited by a class of powerful noblemen, laws, traditions, Judeo-Christian beliefs, and having a conscience -- reminded that he will be held accountable the King of kings in the next life.
Montesquieu
described a
"despot"
as
a king with no strings attached,
who rules
without a conscience,
according to his whims and caprices, exercising
absolute
and
arbitrary power:
- absolute power, means the moment he says something it is the law; and
- arbitrary power, means no one can predict what he will say next.
|
|
Montesquieu
understood that
man's nature
was
inherently selfish
and, opportunity provided,
any person
could be
tempted to accumulate power
and become
a despot.
|
|
St. Augustine
called this
"libido dominandi"
-- the
lust
to
dominate.
Montesquieu
explained that
once virtue is gone,
a
republic
will become
lawless.
The resulting
insecurity for life and property
causes individuals to beg for someone to restore order.
The
power
of governing will then
gravitate from the many to the few.
Popular government
will be usurped by
a despot,
who will reward his supporters with pleasure, and dominate the rest of his subjects through
fear.
|
|
Montesquieu
wrote:
"It is the nature of
a Republican governmen
t that ... the collective body of
the People
... should be ... the
Supreme Power ...
In a
Popular state,
one
spring
more is
necessary,
namely,
Virtue ...
The politic
Greeks,
who lived under a
Popular government,
knew no other support than
Virtue ...
When Virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds
of those who are disposed to receive it, and
avarice (greed) possesses the whole community ...
When, in a
Popular government,
there is a suspension of the laws, as this can proceed only from the
corruption of the republic,
the
state is certainly undone."
|
|
James Monroe
warned in his Inaugural Address, 1817:
"It is only
when the people become ignorant and corrupt,
when they degenerate into a populace (mob), that
they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty.
Usurpation
is then an easy attainment, and
a usurper soon found.
The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin."
|
|
Ancient Israel
functioned as a
republic
during its first four hundred years in the promised land -- before they demanded a king.
Enoch Cobb Wines wrote in
Commentaries on the Laws of the Ancient Hebrews, with an Introductory Essay on Civil Society & Government
(NY: Geo. P. Putnam & Co., 1853):
"A fundamental principle of the Hebrew government was ... the
education of the whole body of the people;
especially, in the
knowledge of the constitution, laws and history of their own country.
An ignorant people cannot be a free people.
Intelligence
is essential to
liberty.
No nation is capable of
self-government,
which is not
educated
to understand and appreciate
its responsibilities ...
Maimonides,
in his treatise on the study of the law, says:
'Every Israelite,
whether poor or rich, healthy or sick, old or young,
is obliged to study the law
... ' He asks, 'How long ought a man to pursue the study of the law?' and replies, 'Till death ...'"
|
|
E.C. Wines
continued:
"
Moses ... intended, that all his
people should share in the management of the public affairs.
He meant
each
to be a
depositary of political power
... as a solemn trust ...
On the subject of education, he appears chiefly anxious to have his
people instructed in the knowledge of ... their duties
as
men
and
citizens.
He ... (did not) desire to see the mass of the people shut out from all political power
... nor ... to see the power of the masses increased, irrespective of their ability to discharge so important a trust beneficially to the community.
In his educational scheme,
power
and
knowledge went hand in hand.
The possession of
the latter
was regarded as essential to the right use of
the former ...
In proportion as this idea enters into the constitution of a state, tyranny will hide its head, practical equality will be established, party strife will abate its ferocity, error, rashness, and folly will disappear, and an enlightened, dignified, and venerable public opinion will bear sway ...
It is
political ignorance alone,
that can reconcile men to ...
surrender of their rights;
it is
political knowledge alone,
that can rear an effectual
barrier
against the encroachments of
arbitrary power and lawless violence."
|
|
Montesquieu
continued in
The Spirit of the Laws,
1748:
"As
Virtue
is necessary in a
Republic ...
so
Fear
is necessary in a
Despotic
government: with regard to Virtue, there is no occasion for it ...
Fear
must therefore depress their spirits, and
extinguish
even the least sense of
ambition ...
Of a
Despotic
government, that a single person ...
rule according to his own will and caprice ...
He who commands the execution of the laws generally
thinks himself above them,
there is
less need of Virtue
than in a popular government ..."
|
|
Montesquieu
added:
"Such are the principles ... of government ...
in a particular
Republic
they actually are ...
Virtuous ...
in a particular
Despotic
government by
Fear."
|
|
In contrasting which religion supports a moderate
Monarch
or
Republic,
and which supports a
Despot, Montesquieu
wrote in
The Spirit of the Laws,
1748:
"A
moderate Government
is most agreeable to the
Christian Religion,
and a
despotic Government
to the
Mahometan ...
The
Christian religion
is a stranger to mere despotic power.
The
mildness
so frequently recommended in the
Gospel
is
incompatible with the despotic rage
with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty.
As
this religion forbids the plurality of wives,
its princes are less confined, less concealed from their subjects, and consequently
have more humanity:
they are more disposed to be
directed by laws,
and more capable of
perceiving that they cannot do whatever they please.
While the
Mahometan princes
incessantly give or receive death,
the
religion of the Christians renders their princes ... less cruel.
The prince confides in his subjects, and the subjects in the prince.
How admirable the religion which, while it only seems to have in view the felicity of the other life, continues
the happiness of this! ...
It is the
Christian religion
that ... has
hindered despotic power."
|
|
Montesquieu
continued:
"From the characters of the
Christian
and
Mahometan religions,
we ought, without any further examination, to
embrace the one and reject the other:
for it is much easier to prove that
religion ought to humanize the manners of men
than that any particular religion is true.
It is a misfortune to human nature when religion is given by a conqueror.
The
Mahometan religion, which speaks only by the sword,
acts still upon men with that
destructive spirit with which it was founded."
|
|
Of the Christian religion,
Montesquieu
examined:
"When the
Christian religion,
two centuries ago, became
unhappily divided into Catholic and Protestant,
the people of the
north
embraced the
Protestant,
and those of the
south
adhered still to the
Catholic.
The reason is plain: the people of the
north
have, and will forever have,
a spirit of liberty and independence,
which the people of the
south have not;
and therefore
a religion which has no visible head is more agreeable to the independence
of the climate than that which has one ...
When a religion is introduced and fixed in a state, it is commonly such as is most suitable to the plan of government there established."
|
|
Montesquieu
compared Lutheran and Calvinist countries:
"In the countries themselves where the
Protestant religion
became established, the revolutions were made pursuant to the several plans of political government.
Luther
having great princes on his side ...
an ecclesiastical authority
... while
Calvin,
having to do with
people who lived under republican governments ...
Each of these two religions was believed to be perfect; the
Calvinist
judging his most conformable to what
Christ had said,
and the
Lutheran
to what the
Apostles had practiced."
|
|
Warning of the abuse of power when concentrated,
Montesquieu
introduced the revolutionary concept of
separating the powers of ruling
into
three branches:
- legislative,
- executive, and
- judicial.
These
three branches
would selfishly pull against each other to prevent one from overpowering the others -- thus
using selfish power to selfish check power.
The brilliance of this is equivalent to a Sunday school teacher giving an assignment -- "design a system of government where sinners keep other sinners from sinning."
|
|
An indirect reference to the three branches was made at
New Hampshire's Convention to Ratify the U.S. Constitution,
June 5, 1788.
Harvard President Samuel Langdon
gave an address titled,
“The Republic of the Israelites an Example to the American States,”
in which he referenced Isaiah 33:22, "For the Lord
is
our
Judge,
the Lord
is
our
Lawgiver,
the Lord
is
our
King;
he will save us":
"This being the
ninth State
which has acceded to this
form of national Union,
it will be
carried into effect;
and there is no reason to doubt of the speedy
accession of all the other States ...
May all rejoice in the Lord, who has formed us into a nation, and honor Him as our
Judge, Lawgiver,
and
King,
who hath saved us."
|
|
Montesquieu
wrote:
"Nor is there liberty if the power of
Judging
is not separated from
Legislative
power and from
Executive
power.
If it were joined to
Legislative
power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the
Judge
would be the
Legislator.
If it were joined to
Executive
power, the
Judge
could have the force of an
oppressor.
ALL WOULD BE LOST
if the same
... body of principal
men ... exercised these three powers."
|
|
James Madison
echoed this in
The Federalist No. 51:
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place ...
If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary."
|
|
In
The Spirit of the Laws,
1748,
Montesquieu
wrote:
"I have always respected religion; the morality of the
Gospel is the noblest gift ever bestowed by God on man.
We shall see that
we owe to Christianity, in government, a certain political law,
and in war a certain law of nations -- benefits which human nature can never sufficiently acknowledge.
The principles of Christianity,
deeply engraved on the heart, would be infinitely more powerful than the
false Honor of Monarchies,
than the
humane Virtues of Republics,
or the
servile Fear of Despotic states."
|
|
In his
Considerations on the Causes of the Grandeur and Decadence of the Romans,
1734,
Montesquieu
wrote:
"It is not chance that rules the world. Ask the Romans ... There are
general causes,
moral and physical ...
elevating it,
maintaining it,
or hurling it to the ground ...
If the chance of one battle -- that is, a particular cause -- has brought a state to ruin, some general cause made it necessary for that state to perish from a single battle. In a word, the main trend draws with it all particular accidents."
|
|
In the beginning of
The Spirit of the Laws,
1748,
Montesquieu
wrote:
"God
is related to the universe as
Creator and Preserver;
the
laws by which He created all things
are those by which He
preserves them ...
But the intelligent world is far from being so well governed as the physical ...
Man,
as a physical being, is like other bodies
governed by invariable laws.
As an intelligent being,
he incessantly transgresses the laws established by God,
and changes those of his own instituting.
He is left to his private direction, though a limited being, and subject, like all finite intelligences, to
ignorance and error
... hurried away by a thousand
impetuous passions.
Such a being might every instant forget his
Creator; God has therefore reminded him of his duty by the laws of religion."
|
|
Baron Montesquieu
died on FEBRUARY 10, 1755.
Montesquieu
wrote in
The Spirit of the Laws,
1748:
"The Christian religion,
which orders men to
love one another,
no doubt wants the
best political laws
and the
best civil laws
for each people, because
those laws are, after (religion), the greatest good that men can give and receive."
|
|
American Minute is a registered trademark of William J. Federer. Permission is granted to forward, reprint, or duplicate, with acknowledgment.
|
|
Schedule Bill Federer for informative interviews & captivating PowerPoint presentations: 314-502-8924
wjfederer@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
