|
|
IdentificationCharles de Montesquieu (1689-1755) came from Bordeaux, where he spent the greater part of his life, interrupted by long stays abroad. He was the most acute social scientist of his day and is regarded as the originator of modern political science. Like the later Tocqueville (1805-1859), he writes with an elegant mixture of aloofness and great understanding of the ways of life and government systems he encountered in history and his own age. Montesquieu is a realist and a pragmatist. He does not present a theory about the ideal society. Various government systems each have their justification and explanation, and Montesquieu wants to understand their differences and development. Therefore he regards democracy as a system of government like others. He does not preach democracy as The Right Government Form, saying that all other forms are wrong. He will not force through a utopia, but his wish is that “the spirit of moderation should be that of the legislator’s”.
Fundamentally, there are three systems of government, each with its own principle: the republic, based on virtue; monarchy, based on honour; and despotism, based on fear. Democracy is a special variety of the republican government system, as it is the people in general that rule in a democracy. The classic problem arises, however, in that “the people” as such cannot rule itself, but must resort to representatives. Montesquieu is confident that even if the people does not have the same knowledge as the elected representatives, it is able to form a sensible opinion. The people needs “merely to decide on the basis of things of which it cannot be ignorant and on facts that are obvious to the senses”. But if virtue disappears, greed will take over, and the people will no longer be free under the laws but will be free against the laws. The aim of a state is to ensure the freedom of the citizens, which according to Montesquieu is the same as the citizens’ legal protection. Every - body must be able to estimate their opportunities. It requires that the three functions of the state – to legislate, to administer and to judge – are kept separate and that they are assigned to three different state bodies. The legislative power must be in the hands of a parliament, the executive power must be placed with the king and the judicial power with independent courts of law, which Montesquieu wants to be elected by the people. None of the three powers must control the legislature or the executive. The parliament must have two chambers, one of which is to represent the aristocracy and the other “the people” (which in practice is the upper middle classes). The two chambers must be in agreement in order for a law to be adopted, and the law must subsequently be given the royal assent in order to become valid. The executive cannot levy taxes until parliament has approved them. At the same time, both the courts of law and the king must accept that every - thing they do must be based on the law and that nothing of what they do must violate the law. Power must set limits to power, and the three powers must be forced to cooperate because none of them can prevail on its own. Montesquieu finds his point of departure in things as they are, and he wants to find a sensible balance between the existing social groups. He is not a radical champion of equality, but notes that the aristocracy will protest against being treated on equal terms with others. Such a protest can be rejected. Montesquieu does not reject it, but accepts that the aristocracy is like that, which society must take into consideration by establishing two parliamentary chambers, with the right of veto vis-à-vis the other chamber. Montesquieu is not a modern democrat. His opinion that the tripartite division of power will benefit peace and security is based on the assumption that the legislative power is in the hands of a small minority. Nevertheless, he believes that the population will benefit from such a division. By contrast, the population’s freedom was threatened by the then French system of government according to which an absolute king was in control of legislation and the courts, thus diminishing legal protection and increasing insecurity. “The welfare of the people”, says Montesquieu in no uncertain terms, “is the law above all laws”. He wants to ensure personal freedom and avoid a concentration of power that will lead to oppression.
A love of the republic in a democracy is a love of the democracy; as the latter is that of equality. A love of the democracy is likewise that of frugality. Since every individual ought here to enjoy the same happiness and the same advantages, they should consequently taste the same pleasures and form the same hopes, which cannot be expected but from a general frugality. (…) The principle of democracy is corrupted not only when the spirit of equality is extinct, but likewise when they fall into a spirit of extreme equality, and when each citizen would fain be upon a level with those whom he has chosen to command him. Then the people, incapable of bearing the very power they have delegated, want to manage everything themselves, to debate for the senate, to execute for the magistrate, and to decide for the judges. (…) The political liberty of the subject is a tranquillity of mind arising from the opinion each person has of his safety. In order to have this liberty, it is requisite the government be so constituted as one man need not be afraid of another. (…) There would be an end of everything, were the same
man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the
people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting
laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of
trying the causes of individuals.”
|
|
|||
|
Top of the page |
This page is part of the electronic publication "The Danish Democracy Canon"