Political And Social Ideas Of Montesquieu And Rousseau Social Paper

POLITICAL AND SOCIAL IDEAS OF MONTESQUIEU AND ROUSSEAU
Student’s Name
Course
Date
Introduction
The enlightenment was a crucial period in the history of the western world. This era is also called the age of reason because it is during this period in history that philosophers started questioning an old order that had defined the society for ages. Before the age of enlightenment, the society was led by kings whose rule was unquestionable. Enlightenment thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean Rousseau, John Locke, and Baron Montesquieu sparked the reasoning of the society and made the majority of the ruled start questioning legibility of kings. The French Revolution and the American Revolution are attributed to the political and social ideas that emanated from the era of enlightenment. Political revolutions were impactful because they established new social and political order that has impacted the whole world today. Baron Montesquieu and Jean Rousseau are two of the Enlightenment political philosophers that narrowed their ideas on the relationship between the government and the government. The present study compares and contrasts the political and social ideas of Montesquieu and Rousseau.[Thomas, Paine. The age of reason. (Secacaus, N.J: Citadel Press, 1807), 33]
Before delving into the understanding of the political and social philosophies of Rousseau and Montesquieu, it is important that one understands their brief history and how their environment shaped their political ideologies. Montesquieu was a French political philosopher born in Bordeaux, France. Montesquieu’s work was mainly compiled in his book The Spirit of Laws which emphasized the role of man and natural, inalienable rights. His political and social ideas were mainly responsible for the formation of most western governments with a key emphasis on the separation of powers within governments. He emphasized the success of a government on the application of scientific knowledge where a systematic balance of power ensured equality in the government and its citizens. His main argument was the application of scientific knowledge by breaking down the main government into branches with every branch holding a constitutional responsibility of maintaining a system of check and balance over the other. Rousseau was born in Geneva, Switzerland and lived as a French philosopher during the age of enlightenment. Unlike Montesquieu, who had studied law, Rousseau studied political science, and his thoughts were compiled in his study and observance of the government. His main work was compiled in The Social Contract where he argued that a government is an agreement between the citizens and the government. The government is a servant to the citizens, and they hold the right to dissolve it any time they feel that it is failing to meet its obligation.
Similarities between Political and Social Ideas of Montesquieu and Rousseau
Both Montesquieu and Rousseau held similar ideas on the type of the government, they championed, even though they came from different backgrounds. Rousseau was a commoner and Montesquieu from the nobbling background, but both believed in the form of the government that was controlled by popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty implied that power was in the hands of the governed and it was the responsibility of the governed to decide the type of the government that they wished to have. This kind of thinking was against the popular traditional mode of thinking where kings ruled people. Kings were viewed as aristocratic because they limited the freedom of popular sovereign. People were forced to laws and regulations without questioning the legibility of the rulers because leadership was hereditary. Rousseau and Montesquieu believed that life could only be fair if people were allowed to decide the type of the government they wanted to have.[Bergman, P., Matthew. “Montesquieu Theory of Government and the Framing of the American Constitution.” Pepperdine Law Review, vol. 18, no. 1, (1990), 16.]
In The Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu argues for a democratic type of government that is all-inclusive. Montesquieu argues that people have natural rights which they cannot lay down or submit to the government. Citizens possess powers that they can use to enact a government and use similar powers to overthrow the government if it tries to deprive them of their natural rights. Rousseau holds similar views in The Social Contract. Rousseau argued that man was only good if he is in a state of nature. A state of nature is similar to that of wild animals where no laws are limiting their freedom. Even though Rousseau did not mention whether a man is acting morally when in a state of nature, his focus was on how people can prosper when they are not limited by the masses or the government. He explains in The Social Contract that the cause of inequality is because the wealthy have tricked the poor into surrendering their wealth to the rich. The Social Contract type of government is, therefore, a flawed form of government because it creates room for inequality and oppression of the people without their consent. This kind of thinking sparked the anger of the governed by the French government and explained why Rousseau is said to have contributed a greater deal to the French Revolution.[Wright, Johnson. “Montesquieuan Moments: The Spirit of Laws and Republicanism.” Proceedings of Western Society for French History, vol. 35, 157 (2009). Ibid, 159] []
Apart from agreeing with Montesquieu that the government was a form of social contract between the governed and the government, Rousseau also supported Montesquieu’s political idea that the relationship between the ruled and the government was reciprocal. This implies that even though people have enacted the government to create social order, the government has a responsibility of safeguarding those rights and ensuring that nobody is harmed. Montesquieu advocated for this form of governance through indirect democracy with three branches of the government- the legislature for making laws, judiciary for interpreting laws, and the executive for enforcing the laws. Rousseau advocated reciprocity in governance through direct democracy where people were to be involved in direct voting to decide the type of government they wanted to have. The government was also to act as a custodian of the rights of the citizens and not deprive them of their natural rights. Montesquieu was, for instance, strictly opposed to the idea of absolute monarchy where power was vested in the hands of kings. He argued that absolute monarchy deprived citizens of their rights to free speech and political participation.[5. Nugent, Thomas and Neuman, Franz. The Spirit of Laws by Baron de Montesquieu. (New York: Hafner Publishers, 1949), 63.]
To better understand the Rousseau’s and Montesquieu’s political ideas, it is good for one to consider the advantages and disadvantages of direct and indirect democracy. Montesquieu’s concept of indirect democracy was guided by his belief that representative democracy thrives on a system of checks and balances, hence making sure that the unalienable natural rights of the citizen are protected. The balance between extreme equality and inequality makes sure that no branch of the government engages in corruption. The problem with this type of government is that the majority makes laws that are imposed on the minority. Even if the minority is right, their voice does not count because their number in the voting process remains insignificant. Rousseau advocated for indirect where power in the government is split equally between the people and the government. Citizens are directly involved in enacting the government and willfully submit their rights and resources to a responsible government. The advantage of this type of democracy is that every citizen knows that his vote counts. The problem is that it creates room for corruption because there are higher chances of interest groups paying a section of people to vote on a law that disadvantages the minority.[6. Ibid., 68]
Montesquieu and Rousseau also held similar views when it on social inequalities in the society. Social inequality arises when there is an unequal distribution of wealth. In the Reading La Nouvelle Heloise today, which was written by Rousseau, Moustefai explains that Rousseau ...