Discover the foundational principles of governance according to Montesquieu's seminal work, "The Spirit of the Laws" (1748). This excerpt from Book III, Chapter V, reveals how the philosopher delineates the driving forces behind different political regimes, from monarchies to republics. Montesquieu argues that the principle of a government - virtue in republics, honor in monarchies - is what animates its actions. He contends that in monarchies, the monarch's power checks the desire for domination, while in republics, the people must be virtuous to constrain themselves through laws. Explore how Montesquieu's thoughts on governance, influenced by the English political model, shape his vision for a balanced and enduring political system that prioritizes the happiness and freedom of the people. Uncover the nuances of his theory and its implications for understanding the complex interplay between laws, governance, and societal well-being.
Extract
[...] He is very surprised by this model of extreme political freedom. He wonders about the viability of this model if it were exported to France. This will form "The Spirit of the Laws". The English political model, too advanced for France, remains an influence for Montesquieu and inspires him in The Spirit of the Laws. He questions the conditions for the survival of a long-term regime and deduces that he must preserve the happiness of the people, who must feel free despite the laws. [...]
[...] During the elaboration of the Constitution in 1791, this division of powers and the right of veto of the rulers will be discussed. He therefore does not strictly separate the powers and says that they are « distributed and mixed to communicate with each other and to counter and balance each other. Montesquieu does not prefer any political regime: it would be contrary to the spirit of the laws he conceptualized. A law is adapted to its country, personalized according to its people. It cannot, according to him, be exported without being adjusted. [...]
[...] He defends himself from judging anything but is virulent towards the latter and other flaws. He censures all types of political servitude, condemns civil servitude (slavery), domestic servitude (the confinement of women), torture . This list shows that he is not neutral but a philosopher with a project: that of educating an imaginary legislator to the advent of a new political system. He is more often a judge than a sociologist. Let us cite Durkheim, still in 1892, who declares: « This design [« neutral he applied himself so well to realizing it that many have even blamed him for never having blamed anything, but for having respected reality to the point of not even daring to pass judgment on it. [...]
[...] If the nature of a government is what makes it such as it is (monarchic, republican or despotic), the principle of a government is what makes it act as such: for the republic, the principle of virtue; for the monarchy, the principle of honor. These principles are passions that correspond to their nature, the mode of distribution and exercise of power. In short, a government is defined by its nature and subsists by its principle. This concept of a government ruled by a passion seems surprising in political philosophy where rationality is usually in place. [...]
[...] He then shows the monarchic principle in opposition to the republican principle. He takes as an example the mistakes committed in each regime (lines « Or, in republics, private crimes are more public; that is, shock the constitution of the State more than individuals: and in monarchies, public crimes are more private; that is, shock the particular fortunes more than the constitution of the State itself. The dichotomy is enlightening: for Montesquieu, the monarch does not have to be virtuous because he creates laws that do not affect him. [...]
