Top-Rated Free Essay

Forms of Government

Better Essays
4.1 Forms of Government
Montesquieu holds that there are three types of governments: republican governments, which can take either democratic or aristocratic forms; monarchies; and despotisms. Unlike, for instance, Aristotle, Montesquieu does not distinguish forms of government on the basis of the virtue of the sovereign. The distinction between monarchy and despotism, for instance, depends not on the virtue of the monarch, but on whether or not he governs "by fixed and established laws" (SL 2.1). Each form of government has a principle, a set of "human passions which set it in motion" (SL 3.1); and each can be corrupted if its principle is undermined or destroyed.
In a democracy, the people are sovereign. They may govern through ministers, or be advised by a senate, but they must have the power of choosing their ministers and senators for themselves. The principle of democracy is political virtue, by which Montesquieu means "the love of the laws and of our country" (SL 4.5), including its democratic constitution. The form of a democratic government makes the laws governing suffrage and voting fundamental. The need to protect its principle, however, imposes far more extensive requirements. On Montesquieu's view, the virtue required by a functioning democracy is not natural. It requires "a constant preference of public to private interest" (SL 4.5); it "limits ambition to the sole desire, to the sole happiness, of doing greater services to our country than the rest of our fellow citizens" (SL 5.3); and it "is a self-renunciation, which is ever arduous and painful" (SL 4.5). Montesquieu compares it to monks' love for their order: "their rule debars them from all those things by which the ordinary passions are fed; there remains therefore only this passion for the very rule that torments them. ... the more it curbs their inclinations, the more force it gives to the only passion left them" (SL 5.2). To produce this unnatural self-renunciation, "the whole power of education is required" (SL 4.5). A democracy must educate its citizens to identify their interests with the interests of their country, and should have censors to preserve its mores. It should seek to establish frugality by law, so as to prevent its citizens from being tempted to advance their own private interests at the expense of the public good; for the same reason, the laws by which property is transferred should aim to preserve an equal distribution of property among citizens. Its territory should be small, so that it is easy for citizens to identify with it, and more difficult for extensive private interests to emerge.
Democracies can be corrupted in two ways: by what Montesquieu calls "the spirit of inequality" and "the spirit of extreme equality" (SL 8.2). The spirit of inequality arises when citizens no longer identify their interests with the interests of their country, and therefore seek both to advance their own private interests at the expense of their fellow citizens, and to acquire political power over them. The spirit of extreme equality arises when the people are no longer content to be equal as citizens, but want to be equal in every respect. In a functioning democracy, the people choose magistrates to exercise executive power, and they respect and obey the magistrates they have chosen. If those magistrates forfeit their respect, they replace them. When the spirit of extreme equality takes root, however, the citizens neither respect nor obey any magistrate. They "want to manage everything themselves, to debate for the senate, to execute for the magistrate, and to decide for the judges" (SL 8.2). Eventually the government will cease to function, the last remnants of virtue will disappear, and democracy will be replaced by despotism.
In an aristocracy, one part of the people governs the rest. The principle of an aristocratic government is moderation, the virtue which leads those who govern in an aristocracy to restrain themselves both from oppressing the people and from trying to acquire excessive power over one another. In an aristocracy, the laws should be designed to instill and protect this spirit of moderation. To do so, they must do three things. First, the laws must prevent the nobility from abusing the people. The power of the nobility makes such abuse a standing temptation in an aristocracy; to avoid it, the laws should deny the nobility some powers, like the power to tax, which would make this temptation all but irresistible, and should try to foster responsible and moderate administration. Second, the laws should disguise as much as possible the difference between the nobility and the people, so that the people feel their lack of power as little as possible. Thus the nobility should have modest and simple manners, since if they do not attempt to distinguish themselves from the people "the people are apt to forget their subjection and weakness" (SL 5.8). Finally, the laws should try to ensure equality among the nobles themselves, and among noble families. When they fail to do so, the nobility will lose its spirit of moderation, and the government will be corrupted.
In a monarchy, one person governs "by fixed and established laws" (SL 2.1). According to Montesquieu, these laws "necessarily suppose the intermediate channels through which (the monarch's) power flows: for if there be only the momentary and capricious will of a single person to govern the state, nothing can be fixed, and, of course, there is no fundamental law" (SL 2.4). These 'intermediate channels' are such subordinate institutions as the nobility and an independent judiciary; and the laws of a monarchy should therefore be designed to preserve their power. The principle of monarchical government is honor. Unlike the virtue required by republican governments, the desire to win honor and distinction comes naturally to us. For this reason education has a less difficult task in a monarchy than in a republic: it need only heighten our ambitions and our sense of our own worth, provide us with an ideal of honor worth aspiring to, and cultivate in us the politeness needed to live with others whose sense of their worth matches our own. The chief task of the laws in a monarchy is to protect the subordinate institutions that distinguish monarchy from despotism. To this end, they should make it easy to preserve large estates undivided, protect the rights and privileges of the nobility, and promote the rule of law. They should also encourage the proliferation of distinctions and of rewards for honorable conduct, including luxuries.
A monarchy is corrupted when the monarch either destroys the subordinate institutions that constrain his will, or decides to rule arbitrarily, without regard to the basic laws of his country, or debases the honors at which his citizens might aim, so that "men are capable of being loaded at the very same time with infamy and with dignities" (SL 8.7). The first two forms of corruption destroy the checks on the sovereign's will that separate monarchy from despotism; the third severs the connection between honorable conduct and its proper rewards. In a functioning monarchy, personal ambition and a sense of honor work together. This is monarchy's great strength and the source of its extraordinary stability: whether its citizens act from genuine virtue, a sense of their own worth, a desire to serve their king, or personal ambition, they will be led to act in ways that serve their country. A monarch who rules arbitrarily, or who rewards servility and ignoble conduct instead of genuine honor, severs this connection and corrupts his government.
In despotic states "a single person directs everything by his own will and caprice" (SL 2.1). Without laws to check him, and with no need to attend to anyone who does not agree with him, a despot can do whatever he likes, however ill-advised or reprehensible. His subjects are no better than slaves, and he can dispose of them as he sees fit. The principle of despotism is fear. This fear is easily maintained, since the situation of a despot's subjects is genuinely terrifying. Education is unnecessary in a despotism; if it exists at all, it should be designed to debase the mind and break the spirit. Such ideas as honor and virtue should not occur to a despot's subjects, since "persons capable of setting a value on themselves would be likely to create disturbances. Fear must therefore depress their spirits, and extinguish even the least sense of ambition" (SL 3.9). Their "portion here, like that of beasts, is instinct, compliance, and punishment" (SL 3.10), and any higher aspirations should be brutally discouraged.
Montesquieu writes that "the principle of despotic government is subject to a continual corruption, because it is even in its nature corrupt" (SL 8.10). This is true in several senses. First, despotic governments undermine themselves. Because property is not secure in a despotic state, commerce will not flourish, and the state will be poor. The people must be kept in a state of fear by the threat of punishment; however, over time the punishments needed to keep them in line will tend to become more and more severe, until further threats lose their force. Most importantly, however, the despot's character is likely to prevent him from ruling effectively. Since a despot's every whim is granted, he "has no occasion to deliberate, to doubt, to reason; he has only to will" (SL 4.3). For this reason he is never forced to develop anything like intelligence, character, or resolution. Instead, he is "naturally lazy, voluptuous, and ignorant" (SL 2.5), and has no interest in actually governing his people. He will therefore choose a vizier to govern for him, and retire to his seraglio to pursue pleasure. In his absence, however, intrigues against him will multiply, especially since his rule is necessarily odious to his subjects, and since they have so little to lose if their plots against him fail. He cannot rely on his army to protect him, since the more power they have, the greater the likelihood that his generals will themselves try to seize power. For this reason the ruler in a despotic state has no more security than his people.
Second, monarchical and republican governments involve specific governmental structures, and require that their citizens have specific sorts of motivation. When these structures crumble, or these motivations fail, monarchical and republican governments are corrupted, and the result of their corruption is that they fall into despotism. But when a particular despotic government falls, it is not generally replaced by a monarchy or a republic. The creation of a stable monarchy or republic is extremely difficult: "a masterpiece of legislation, rarely produced by hazard, and seldom attained by prudence" (SL 5.14). It is particularly difficult when those who would have both to frame the laws of such a government and to live by them have previously been brutalized and degraded by despotism. Producing a despotic government, by contrast, is relatively straightforward. A despotism requires no powers to be carefully balanced against one another, no institutions to be created and maintained in existence, no complicated motivations to be fostered, and no restraints on power to be kept in place. One need only terrify one's fellow citizens enough to allow one to impose one's will on them; and this, Montesquieu claims, "is what every capacity may reach" (SL 5.14). For these reasons despotism necessarily stands in a different relation to corruption than other forms of government: while they are liable to corruption, despotism is its embodiment.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Baron de Montesquieu was a highly influential political philosopher who lived during the 17th and 18th centuries. Through observations of many different civilizations in his travels all around Europe, he was able to formulate revolutionary ideas and theories about politics and government that still affect the world to this day. In his works, Montesquieu highlighted what he believed was wrong with society at the time, explained different governmental systems and their individual characteristics, and theorized how a government could be made to be as well-functioning and efficient as possible. Overall, the works and ideas of Montesquieu, in addition to having a large effect on Europe during his time, inspired later philosophers and influenced…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Philosophers have been studying this question for hundreds of years. Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, Montesquieu and others all have very different ideas of how humanity should organize their government based on the nature of man. Some of those ideals have transferred over into modern societies that are prominent in our world today, while others have kicked the bucket alike their creators. The nature of man can be defined as many things weather it is that man is either good or bad, or something more complicated; Human beings are egocentric and self-interested, so therefore life in the state of nature is short and brutish. The nature of man is much more complicated though and can be defined with an ample meeker broader statement. Baron de Montesquieu believes that all of mankind is born equal. It can be said that this doesn’t define the true nature of human beings, but this transfers into the most common and dominant type of government today which is democracy. Baron de Montesquieu’s ideals most directly translate into a fair and democratic government, and because of this humanity should organize their government in this fashion.…

    • 821 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Forms of government did not necessarily evolve because of knowledge, but out of necessity, and while some regimes failed, others have thrived. Theocracy, tyranny, and oligarchy are administrations are typical for countries that are considered less civilized. In theocracy, religion dominate politics. Tyrannies are effective as long as the dictator can subdue his subordinates, and oligarchies are primed for civil unrest and discord because only the aristocrats are in power. Therefore, these forms of government typically depend on ill-advised and weak people in order to survive. On the other hand, some forms of monarchy and democracy survived the eastern civilization, traveled west, and appears in today’s civilized…

    • 108 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Between the levels of government there exist different structures, the federal government is a body is the government body of individuals at the federal level that sets and administers public policies, in US the federal government is established by the US constitution guides and it helps to maintain the use of power within the federation. In the US the federal government has three branches with which it operates and share sovereignty over the United States with the individual government of the states of US.…

    • 911 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Montesquieu was a French philosopher who lived during the European Age in the 17th and 18th centuries. His writings and his political ideas were read by American colonists and founders and had an influence on the shaping of the U.S. Constitution. Montesquieu's most famous work was The Spirit of the Laws, the work of political philosophy which his ideas were drawn. Montesquieu's contribution to political adress is his theory on the separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches, which became the bedrock of the U.S. Constitution and the way the founders envisioned a plan that would divide and thus balance the powers of the new government. Montesquieu based his thinking on the republican government of the ancient Romans and on the parliamentary monarchy of Britain at the time. These governments, he argued, prevented the concentration of power in one person's hands and the infringement upon individual liberties that come with dictatorial governments.…

    • 561 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The United States was founded on economic and political freedom. This freedom enables all our citizens to successfully pursue unlimited opportunities to use their god given talents to work, produce, invest, take risk, and grow wealthy while keeping the prosperous fruits of their enterprise. Here we have state governments that are “laboratories of government” and a notional government that has more autonomy than the state government. The state governments have some type of autonomy but the national government is stronger even if they are not close to those individuals the serve.…

    • 279 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Through out our history and even in modern times, colonialism, imperialism and revolution have played a major part in the rise and fall of power structure and governance in the world. Societies have been overtaken, ruled, risen, and fallen. Wars have been fought for the power of one society, faction, or government to rule another. Non violent revolutions have enacted changes in power as well, making significant changes in power structures.…

    • 1182 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Forms and Places of Power

    • 363 Words
    • 2 Pages

    ==========================================================================Among the forms of power, there is, for example, the power of the media. Indeed, the media play a very important role within today's society. Media consists of books, television, movies, music, internet, radio, magazines, newspapers etc…

    • 363 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Types of Government

    • 2046 Words
    • 9 Pages

    The Republic of Korea, commonly known as South Korea or the Korea Republic is an East Asian country on the southern half of the Korean Peninsula. To the north, it is bordered by North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), with which it was united until 1945. To the west, across the Yellow Sea, lies China and to the southeast, across the Korea Strait, lies Japan. Approximately one-half of South Korea's population lives in or near the capital Seoul, the second most populous metropolitan area in the world.…

    • 2046 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In his paper Niskanen provides valuable analysis of the effects of the voting rule, the progressivity of the tax structure, and the length of the fiscal horizon in democratic governments and interesting insights of the effect of alternative regimes on policies, such as war and immigration, that affect the number of people subject to the regime.…

    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    He argued that the best government would be one in which power was balanced among three groups of officials. He thought England - which divided power between the king-enforced laws, Parliament-made laws, and the judges of the English courts, interpreted laws- was a good model of this. Montesquieu called this idea the “separation of power” in which government was divided into three branches. He believed that separating government into three equal branches but with different powers was essential. That way, the government would avoid placing too much power on one individual or group of individuals. He wrote, "When the [lawmaking] and [law enforcement] powers are united in the same person... there can be no liberty." According to Montesquieu, each branch of government could limit the power of the other two branches. Therefore, no branch of the government could ever threaten to overthrow the freedom of the people. His ideas of separation would latter be used for a very important document that would change the Untied States…

    • 966 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The three major forms of government in the early modern period in Europe could be summarized by looking where the power is centralized. The first form, Absolutism also known as divine right kingship, is centralized to where the power was held by the Monarch and Monarch alone. The second form, Constitutionalism, is centralized by the idea of limited power. The existence of a fundamental governing law that made no one body of the ruling government, too powerful. The third and final form, Enlightened Despotism, is similar to Absolutism but it had limiting ideas which conflicted each other, they limited their growth with the rigid class structures and liberal ideas that were not implemented efficiently. The governments of the early modern period…

    • 153 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Building a New Nation

    • 701 Words
    • 3 Pages

    When deciding how to build a government Montesquieu and Hume had ideas on how they thought the government should work. Montesquieu believed that a republic cannot exist well in large territories, you get to far removed and the political leaders end up getting to do whatever they want. Hume believed that a republic cannot exist in a small territory because the people will get caught up in the little problems and will lose sight of the big picture. He said that as long as we elect good leaders for the best outcome, it can work in a large society.…

    • 701 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Presidential form of Govt

    • 2728 Words
    • 11 Pages

    One placed in authority over others; a chief officer; a presiding or managing officer; a governor, ruler, or director. The chairman, moderator, or presiding officer of a legislative or deliberative body, appointed to keep order, manage the proceedings, and govern the administrative details of their business. The chief officer of a corporation, company, board, committee, etc., generally having the PRESIDENT 935…

    • 2728 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of the majority, meaning that those citizens of the United States who are of legal age control legislation passed by the government. However, the power of the majority can exceed its limits. Tocqueville believed that the United States was a land of equality, liberty, and political wisdom. He considered it be a land where the government only served as the voice of the its citizens. He compares the government of the US to that of European systems. To him, European governments were still constricted by aristocratic privilege, the people had no hand in the formation of their government, let alone, there every day lives. He held up the American system as a successful model of what aristocratic European systems would inevitably become, systems of democracy and social equality. Although he held the American democratic system in high regards, he did have his concerns about the systems shortcomings. Tocqueville feared that the virtues he honored, such as creativity, freedom, civic participation, and taste, would be endangered by "the tyranny of the majority." In the United States the majority rules, but whose their to rule the majority. Tocqueville believed that the majority, with its unlimited power, would unavoidably turn into a tyranny. He felt that the moral beliefs of the majority would interfere with the quality of the elected legislators. The idea was that in a great number of men there was more intelligence, than in one individual, thus lacking quality in legislation. Another disadvantage of the majority was that the interests of the majority always were preferred to that of the minority. Therefore, giving the minority no chance to voice concerns. Even though the minority was free to think differently, they were alienated because of their individuality.…

    • 374 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays