Despotism is everywhere around us

As events emerged after his death, Montesquieu's assessments of Europe's continuing tendency toward despotism proved true. No one who takes even a look at history can deny the need for the lessons Montesquieu tries to offer to “the flow of the Law” that there is no final victory over despotism, and that the West also remains inclined towards it.

It is common for citizens of liberal, democratic countries to believe that despotism is foreign to their experience. Their political constitutions show, in one form or another, a division of powers, which is specifically aimed at preventing the collection of arbitrary and irresponsible powers in any government function. Depositism, on the other hand, is an extreme form of rulership that focuses arbitrary power and can extend throughout life. With constitutional and legal barriers, citizens of liberal societies can believe that victimisation in the hands of despots is an experience reserved for the most unfortunate people. Nevertheless, laws prohibit sexual harassment and violence, even though recent discoveries remind us of the limited efficiency of legal barriers that are merely on paper.

If legal barriers sometimes do not protect us from miniature despots, then political despotism is not as distant as many think. Montesquieu, 18th century French philosopher who introduced the term "despotism" into our political vocabulary, would not be surprised at the division, between the supposed freedom of our society and the experience that many people have, as victims of irresponsible power within it. At “The breath of laws” (1748), it shows that despotism is an ever-present danger and an ongoing threat to mankind, which thrives everywhere and always. Even fortunate people living outside the borders of a despotic government can still be victimized by despotic practices. In response, Montesquieu learns that decaying despotism should remain a central effort in social and political life.

As far as we can remember today, Montesquieu is believed to be the inspiration for the theory of separation of powers, those constitutional barriers to despotism that can make us paradoxically self-enlightened for our freedom. The designers of the Constitution of the United States, in fact, called it a high school of division of powers when they took it from his political teachings. However, reflection on his writings reveals that despotism is a far more widespread phenomenon than individuals in so - called educated and free societies can believe. Throughout the spirit of the Law, he shows that despotism is at the core of the European mentality. The outstanding aspects of religious and philosophical traditions encourage the concentration of power and the severity that can easily lead to despotic violence. With this constant counterbalancing pressure, constitutional arrangements, however critical, cannot contain this phenomenon alone.

Montesquieu's explicit description of despotism seems to refute the claim that Europe contains despotism. After all, it takes from the history of Asia and the Middle East to describe the despots of the great empires, those disgusting figures, which, though fascinated by private pleasures, absorb all powers in the State. Such great power allows the exploitation of the rulers in a way that causes violence, physical and psychological, upon the victims. By doing so, he denies individuals potential for development and strips them of human dignity. It frightens all who may oppose him, for he is often murderous and oppressive. As a result of that definition, Montesquieu seems to many modern readers to be an Orientalist, yet another European intellectual who underestimates foreign societies to praise Western achievements in a process that ultimately justifys colonialism. But this is a superficial reading of a deep thinker and writer. It was common protective practice for intellectuals of his day to use exotic places to criticize their associations.

Much of Montesquieu's criticism of despotism, in fact, constitutes a criticism of Europe. Montesquieu sees Europe as seemingly mild and Christian as the site of some of the most brutal despotic practices. Despite its apparent focus on East despotism, it also manages to underline the despotic practices of honoured European institutions: The Catholic Church and French Monarchy. He reveals the despotism of Portuguese inquisitors, who burn a teenage girl alive for practicing the Judaism of her parents and even her homeland, who executes for treason those who merely rebuke the monarch minister. He thus highlights Europe's cruelty at a time when the expression of such criticism was still extremely dangerous.

Montesquieu takes a stronger stand against cruel sentences, claiming that the knowledge of the exact way to proceed in criminal trials is more important than anything in the world. Freedom, he claims, is a sense of security that conflicts with the threat of arbitrary punishment. His assistant, Cesare Beccaria, continued to lead liberal criminal law reform and punishment in Europe at the end of the 18th century. But this liberalisation had to continue against the current against the honourable European ideas, which, according to Montesquieu's analysis, were despotic. In fact, so important are the ideas in Montesquieu's view that he called some philosophers like “legalist”. Not only do these philosophers aspire to find utopia, but their thinking may, in fact, affect real practices.

In the analysis of Montesquieu, some of Europe's despotic ideas stem from the highest sources, from the writings of Plato and Aristotle, for example, and the teachings of the Church. Although these sources are considered to promote virtues - trying to make better human beings - he reveals in his work a lack of fashionableness, even the cruelty, of ideas that can be found in old, valued volumes, on dusty shelves. Montesquieu highlights Plato's harmful doctrines, which slaves have no right to defend themselves, that magistrates must be absolute, and that punishments must be frequent and severe. Aristotle's teachings likewise appeal to despotic practice, relying heavily on the princely virtues of essential restraint, and slandering the practice of taking an interest in loans, which is in fact lifesaving in trade among nations. Aristotle's teachings help to damage trade that, according to Montesquieu, promotes mildness, which in turn preserves life by opposing war - loving virtues and aggressive suspicion of strangers. He also notes how the Church issues a far more costly law, stemming from the ancient Romans, which equates betrayal with heresy. As a result, the Church and the authorities kill many so - called heretics.

As events emerged after his death, Montesquieu's assessment of Europe's continuing tendency toward despotism proved true. No one who takes a look at history can deny the need for the lessons Montesquieu tries to offer to the Spirit of the Leagues that there is no final victory over despotism, and that the West also remains inclined. In fact, it is an ongoing threat to humanity. Freedom, Montesquieu shows, requires constant monitoring of government practices and ideas, however sacred they are. Despotic ideas can be translated into our favorite ideas and even into our hearts.