Opinion & Commentary
A great among greats
The long-dead philosophers who spelt out those values and concepts on which Western civilisation now rests deserve to be remembered. Let us therefore recall that Charles de Secondat, Baron de Brede et de Montesquieu, died on February 10, 1755 , 250 years ago.
Born in 1689 into the nobility of the Ancien Regime in southern France , when the Sun King was at the peak of his (vain) glory, Montesquieu soon rose to an exalted position in the local parliament and judiciary. When 27, he inherited the Guyenne Senate presidency, which his uncle had bought. Later, he travelled throughout Europe .
Today, he is remembered for three major works. As a young man he published the witty Persian Letters, in which two fictitious Persians correspond with people back home about European culture, liberty and the clash of civilisations. In the middle of his life, he published a book about the greatness and fall of ancient Rome , arguably the first piece of European historic philosophy. He attributed social and political decline to social factors, such as the transition from the Republic with its balance of powers and its occasional Machiavellian ruthlessness to the Empire with its absolute rule, the decline of individual liberty and civil courage, excessive taxation, the welfare state, corruption, inflation and uncontrolled immigration. This makes for worthwhile reading in our own ageing social democracies.
His masterpiece was published in Geneva when he was 56: The Spirit of the Laws. In this huge tome, he refuted a divine, absolute right to rule, idealising instead the English model of constitutional monarchy. Montesquieu held that customs and laws evolved mainly in response to geography and saw a rationale behind the selection and creation of rules. The book became an instant bestseller; 22 editions sold in less than two years, maybe because of the initial ban by the Catholic Church. A translation inspired the British elites, who bought the wines from his Bordeaux vineyards as if one could drink liberty. Enlightened rulers, such as King Frederick the Great of Prussia and Catherine the Great of Russia, used the book like their bible on governance. Ten years later, rich, going blind, and more famous than his envious contemporary, Voltaire, Montesquieu died of pneumonia.
He was highly influential during the last two-thirds of the 18th century when the Enlightenment culminated. During that great flourishing of ideas, which paved the way for modernity, he was a great among the greats Hume, Samuel Johnson, Frederic the Great, Rousseau, Diderot, Voltaire, Turgot, Gibbon, Smith and Burke. With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to criticise many of them for their factual errors, deterministic beliefs and naivety about improving the human character and quality of governance. But one has to admire their dedication to thinking about rational behaviour and how rulers might best compete with each other by offering the people a measure of freedom, security and confidence. Without the intellectual "software" they developed, the agricultural reforms, industrialisation, transport revolution and economic progress of the 19th century would not have materialised.
In The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu made a strong case for the division of powers between the elected legislative, the King's executive and the judiciary. The concept was hugely influential, not only for the American constitution and during the French Revolution, but in constitutional law throughout the world.
Montesquieu condemned slavery, torture, arbitrary fines, tax farming, excessive military spending and the church's influence on politics, but accepted a rule-bound monarchy, uneven wealth distribution and pre-emptive war. He was adamant that a true democracy must safeguard political and economic freedom for all. Those who now ceaselessly advocate more coercive redistribution ought to note his prediction: A democracy that confiscates property through high taxation will decay into chaos and dictatorship. It will eventually disappear.
Montesquieu's concept of three separate powers which balance and control each other in the interest of freedom and stability is of course not part of the Westminster system, including in Australia . Here, the elected majority of the day legislates and determines the prime minister's executive. Because of tightly organised, adversarial political parties, the elected majority rarely controls and, if necessary, opposes the executive. As Montesquieu expected from a system of unbalanced popular democracy, taxation and political spending are now running riot. If we add to this the possibility of politically stacked courts, we see by how much present-day democracies fall short of Montesquieu's ideal.
A concentration of powers, though conducive to resolute government, inflicts a dictatorship of changing elected majorities. Depending on narrow election outcomes, the temporary "tyrannies of the elected majority" under the Westminster system may produce fairly dramatic policy flip-flops, such as the nationalisation, privatisation and renationalisation of industries, or the regulation, deregulation and reregulation of markets; this inflicts confusion and destroys confidence. Eventually, unbridled democracy would end in populism, chaos and dictatorship.
Then, the only safeguard is an alert citizenry that stands up for its own liberty. Montesquieu wrote that "servitude always begins with sleepiness". On that score at least, Australians' pragmatic good sense and ingrained scepticism towards all government would no doubt earn the old Baron's approval.
Wolfgang Kasper is Emeritus Professor of economics at the University of NSW, and a Senior Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.
