Montesquieu Charles De Secondat, Baron De La

Montesquieu Charles de Secondat, Baron de la Montesquieu is vastly honored and credited for his contribution to the democratic structure of the United States of America, so that due partly to his brilliance, America fell into serious civil bloodshed only once in more than 200 years. He advocated constitutionalism civil liberties, the abolition of slavery, moderation and peace, social and economic justice, the rule of law, the balance of power and social equality.

He viewed republic and despotic governments as inversely proportionate, in that in republican governments, men were equal and everything, while in despotic governments, they were equal and nothing. He went up against all forms of extremism and fanaticism and against despotic rule by individuals or groups. He understood that luxury became necessarily absolute in monarchies, such as in the use of liberty. But he also held that abuse of servitude became absolutely necessary in despotic states.

From these lines of thoughts, he arrived at the very natural reflection and conclusion that republics end with luxury and monarchies with poverty. In his Spirit of the Laws (1748), he stressed the absolute necessity of balancing the three branches of government, such as executive, legislative and judicial. In illustrating the necessity, he compared kingdoms in Europe and those in Asia, using Italy and Turkey, respectively (Halsall 1997).

In his book, he said that most European kingdoms (or governments) enjoyed moderate government, because the head posses only two of the first powers and shared the third with his or her subjects or people. He further wrote that these three powers were united in the example of the republic of Italy, resulting in less liberty in European monarchies.

In the case of the Asian example, Turkey in the East, the three powers of government were united and in the hand of the sultan only, so that his subjects necessarily felt burdened and oppressed. In such cases, Montesquieu wrote that the same monarch or body of magistrates may plunder the state, since they also had the power to judge.

Book 17 number 6 states that, geographically, Asia has by nature the greater ability to survive because of certain natural endowments, such as many large prairies, large pieces of sea and springs that run dry more easily. He also wrote that power in Asia has to be despotic precisely because of its geographic design or structure. On the other hand, Europe by nature and geographically can and will thrive under a government of laws primarily because "natural divisions form several states of mediocre size" within the Continent.

In his view, these features are what make Europe superior to other continents. Each part of it makes it difficult to foreign powers to subdue, but can be subdued "by the laws and the usefulness of its commerce." In comparison, there reigns in Asia "a spirit of servitude" that, to him, naturally accompanies its geographic characteristics. He also wrote that this spirit of servitude never left this Continent.

This led him to conclude that, upon his examination of Asian history, he could not find a single trait that could convince him that there is even one person in Asia who could be considered a "free soul." He went as far as concluding that only "the heroism of servitude" could be found in Asia.

Montesquieu wrote accurately only about the geographic descriptions of Asia and Europe and their histories, but cannot sweepingly conclude that no "free soul" could be found in Asia, and that only "the heroism of servitude could be found in it. While his democratic ideas must forever be given credit, he failed to describe what freedom meant to the Asian soul. Asians differ in their world and self-views from Europeans. Asians are clannish, while Europeans or Westerners are individualistic. Asians prefer.