Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Spirit of Laws essay
The Spirit of Laws essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The Spirit of Laws essay
My fellow countrymen, I stand before you today in order to defend the necessity of small republics for democracy and liberty. Let us begin with Montesquieu’s simple thesis: Large republics are incapable of self-government because of the massive and inevitable diversity of their populations and of the interests of that population (153). This leads to a corruption of the principles of democracy and ends liberty. Using Montesquieu’s elegantly argued The Spirit of Laws as a framework to discuss and reflect upon the principles of a democratic republic and the necessity of a small republic, I hope to articulate herein the reasons you should come to see this most brilliant insight, honorable gentlemen. Firstly, let us discuss the principles of democracy …show more content…
In seeing interests too varied, a ruler or executive is forced to impose domination onto the people he is supposed to serve (Montesquieu 140). This not only once again corrupts the principles of democracy, but it also weakens the entire collective of states. Such domination incites the people to rise up against those that govern them and to expel them and challenge their ability to govern and lead a free people – much as Shay’s rebellion demonstrates. Montesquieu is wise here to realize that the only way to govern large swaths of land is only through monarchy and despotism – that of which we have only so recently freed ourselves from (142). When large amounts of territory are placed under a single government, the only way it can govern itself is through coercion and force. In a mid-sized territory, failure to do so leads to the rise of an aristocracy that will, much like the aforementioned wealthy man, will see the oppression of their fellow man as the means necessary to advance their own wealth (Montesquieu 141). In a large territory, despotic command becomes necessary to ensure that the laws and powers of the government are followed quickly and immediately so that the territory can be adequately governed (Montesquieu 142). Both of these would lead to violence and the destruction of liberty and
"With the Gracchi, all the consequences of empire - social, economic and political - broke loose in the Roman state, inaugurating a century of revolution." (The Roman Revolution, Ronald Syme, p16).
Montesquieu states “government should be set up so that no man need be afraid of another”. From this doctrine American Political Philosophers derived the separation of powers into the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches. Montesquieu’s presentation of the branches of government were adopted into American political documents upon their creation. The idea that there wasn’t one governing body, but three was unheard of. Most occupants of the new “America” came from England a country ruled by a King. Therefore making it a Monarchy where a single family is seen as divine and ordained by God to be the ruler over that country. The power is passed down generation to generation and each firstborn son is then placed in power after his father. So, the idea of having a government that does not just depend on one family, but many different persons to run it was not a common philosophy. But, the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights thought that this would be a new and honorable way to run their fledgling country. So thus, the Democratic Republic of the United States was born. Designating the three branches with their own roles in society guaranteed that no one branch would have more power that the others, but it would just have different powers. The three branches are like a triangle. They balance eachother out and support each
Throughout history there have been significant debates, theories and agendas set forward as to what the best form of government is. Many of those individuals and groups who have written on the topic have their critics because they offer points that are highly controversial in theory and problematic when put into practice. John Locke and Publius, which is the collective name for Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, both published essays with regards to the nature of government and largely championed the notion of democracy. With Locke writing on constitutional government in England and Publius writing on and essentially establishing governmental mechanisms in the United States, both parties inspired the rise of liberalism and democratic government in the modern world (Tinder, 67). However, there are questions to be asked of them and indeed comparisons to be made. This essay will examine the arguments set forth by Publius and Locke with a view to proving that they do indeed champion strong government and arguably exclude arbitrary governmental traits that may constrain attempts to do what is best for the individual rather than the people as a whole. In effect, the constraints they put in place in their texts established a balance of power that had its limits and weaknesses but ultimately appeared to be fair.
Montesquieu, for example, through “The Spirit of the Laws” emphasized the need for separation of powers within governments, including the need for branches of government to institute checks and balances within that government. The influence of Montesquieu’s piece was an integral influence
This shows that overall the only way to run a republic is to have certain precautions and restraints. Theses precautions and restraints keep Tyrants from observing opportunities and becoming envious of what one might want. Instead of an open window that he might crawl through to find jewels or valuable items, the window needs to stay shut and locked in order to keep peace. Otherwise problems will arise and the decline of ones owns virtue might bring him to ruin sooner.
The Spirit of the Laws took Montesquieu twenty years to write and was first published in Geneva in 1748. It was distributed freely, without the hindrance of censorship and deemed and instant success, despite negative feedback from friends to whom the manuscript was shown. After two years and twenty-two impressions made across Europe many critics arose of his work, however this merely added to the fame of the author. Despite his critics, Montesquieu knew he had created a worthy and original work of political theory expressed by the phrase of his last preface ‘an offspring made without a mother’. (Montesquieu 1989: preface) This suggests that Montesquieu intended to create a distinctive political theory which was unlike any of his predecessors. Although he quotes famous predecessors such as Plato and Aristotle, he treats them as sources of information rather than philosophical fundamentals.
However, the general will is more than just the will of all. The general will, in theory, is supposed to be what’s best for the state as a whole. In order to reach the general will, citizens must not vote for their own personal interests. Instead they must reject individualism, and embrace the community and it’s needs as a whole. Thus Rousseau concludes that for a democracy to be successful it needed to be a small state, with honest citizens not ruled by greed, materialism, or ambition. Nor could there be factions.
...o creates laws and the judicial system still reviews them. Montesquieu's idea of separation of power was to achieve the proper amount of equality, justice, and virtue for the citizens in a tripartite system of government. It is evident that the Framers of the United States Constitution drew inspiration from the works of this eighteenth-century philosophe, in which his greatest contribution led to the creation of a democratic republic. The ideas of justice and virtue, which is the main principle in any republic, depends on its citizens that they put their country's interest ahead of themselves for the well-being of the state. This remains true and a prominent theme in the US Constitution and its amendments, which provide a base rule and guidelines for all to abide by, thereby granting all of its citizens the peace of mind necessarily for justice to exists.
Between 1787 and 1791 the Framers of the US Constitution established a system of government upon principles that had been discussed and partially implemented in many countries over the course of several centuries, but never before in such a pure and complete design, which we call a constitutional republic. Since then, the design has often been imitated, but important principles have often been ignored in those imitations, with the result that their governments fall short of being true republics or truly constitutional. The Framers of the Constitution tried very hard to design a system that would not allow any one person or group within the government to gain too much power. Personally, I think they succeeded. In order to guard against what one of the Founding Fathers called an "excess of democracy," the Constitution was built with many ways to limit the government's power. Among these methods were separating the three branches, splitting the legislature so laws are carefully considered, and requiring members of Congress to meet certain criteria to qualify for office. The Founders did leave a few problems along with their system.
The Fall of the Republic was more than a solitary man or occasion. It was a perfection of a few individual activities or accomplishments, combined with social conditions that weighed vigorously on Roman culture. Furthermore, gigantic and quick development from Rome 's establishment as a juvenile city 700 years prior until the mid first century BC, made fantastic openings in the political and administering capacity of the Senate. Times of security were blended in with those of close fall while effective commanders or inciters of the Roman horde maneuver for position. Starting with the Punic Wars and Roman success outside of Italy, trailed by huge importation of slaves, the substance of Roman life was changing much more quickly than the administering
...on from women and minorities. As Charles de Montesquieu once said, “The love of democracy is that of equality.” (2)
Book 1 of Plato's Republic raises the question what is justice? Four views of justice are examined. The first is that justice is speaking the truth and paying one's debt. The second is that justice is helping one's friends and harming one's enemies. The third view of justice is that it is to the advantage of the stronger. The last view is that injustice is more profitable than justice.
A new democracy was established in America with certain unique characteristics in its structure and establishment. America’s tyranny never came. America’s duration of holding to its original form of government, since the time of the Constitution, evolved from a near insignificant point in human history, to an era power not in a man, but rather in free men, every one in America for over 200 years. The question of every great historian then is this, “How has America’s democracy thrived when all others previous to it has failed?”1 A brilliant young historian from France devoted a major portion of his life to answer this world changing mystery. Alexis de Tocqueville revealed to Europe, which characteristics instilled in American democracy must be modeled in order to construct a proper institution of government in any nation. He did this in his work, Democracy in America.
Montesquieu argued that to protect the rights of the nation and the security of destruction from the law; self governing bodies must possess individual powers to slow down the natural tendencies of an absolute monarchy. Basically Montesquieu thought that in order to get out of an absolute monarchy and to govern yourself; you must protect the rights of your country and stop the destruction of your country from the law. He thought that human beings could solve society's problems by using their ability to reason. Montesquieu thought that people should take a direct part in their government and not follow what a king or dictator says. That the people living in the country should decide what laws they live by and what there freedoms are. He also thought that peoples ability to reason meant th...
In its true sense the doctrine is very rigid this is why it hasn’t been accepted by various different countries in the world. Montesquieu states that there should be government of law rather than having will and urges of the official. Another very important aspect that he stated in his doctrine is the independence of judiciary. He states that the judiciary is free from other organs of the state and such that the justice could be delivered properly. The judiciary is the scale through which one can measure the actual development of the state if the judiciary is not independent then it is the first step towards a anarchy form of government. Hence the Doctrine of separation of power plays a vital role in the creation of a fair government and also fair and proper justice is dispensed by the judiciary as there is independence of