Social Contract, Rousseau And Montesquieu

Social Contract, Rousseau and Montesquieu

Although, political philosophy began the production of knowledge regarding our natural state, the construction of the State and the notions of the modern state with authors such as Hobbes and Locke, contractualism is belonging and developed by other characters within the Enlightenment or Centuryof the lights. To talk about it, we will address authors such as Rousseau and Montesquieu. But it is necessary to provide a general and contextual panorama of what was lived in time.

Authors such as Hobbes contributed the first knowledge of the social contract and natural state, but they were still immersed in religion and consistently appealed to the monarchy. In the century of lights, differences were made by seeking the sovereignty of the people, explaining where that absolutist state came from, the division of states, and what to do so that we could live together and improve the conditions of the people who belonged to a certain state.

This coexistence, according to contractualism, is known as a social contract, where people accept to lose freedoms that we have in the natural state to be belonging to society and thus the generation of the State is achieved. The authors that we mentioned earlier (Hobbes and Locke), laid the basis of contractualism that was most worked in the century of lights. Although, we already analyzed that the two affirm the existence of a natural state (with their previously mentioned differences), they also coincide with the need for the social pact for the formation of the State and societies.

But it is until the time of illustration when this knowledge begins to evidence, to pragmatize (at least one attempt) and to analyze. Characters like Rousseau, contributed to contractualism and the formation of the modern state; His political philosophy is in force in our day, sitting in the basis of the rule of law or even human rights.

As already mentioned vaguely in this introduction, the era of the 18th century, specifically the second half, advanced rapidly in the field of communications, science and technology; to mention just some of the many advances. But the world despite being revolutionary in several ways, was still very limited in others, as Eric Hobsbawm explains, the amount of surface that worked in a rural way of life was superior to the urban. This implied an economy based on agricultural production, with an advance in communications to facilitate international trade.

Despite this supposed advance in the field of communication, of the economy, etc. The fractions of feudalism continue to accumulate slaves and spread the subordination of people. Thinkers like Rousseau decided to take this context into account to generate ideas of political philosophy, linked to the contractualists of the last century, to restructure the state apparatus that it royed at the time. Now, following the line of the social contract, Rousseau understands that the sovereignty of the people must govern and support the community;The union to strengthen society. And he explains "… as men cannot generate new forces, but only to join and direct those that exist, it has no other means of conservation than to form a sum of forces, capable of overcoming resistance …" (Rousseau, 1999)

In this sense, the social contract results from a departure from passions, the freedom of the natural state, to rationalize the union with others and govern with the co -presence of others;It means to agree with society the control and conservation of the individual.

This contractualist ideology that began since the 17th century, paid off by the end of the 18I was politically alive, although it was increasingly outdated in economic.”(Hobsbawm, 2005)

The 18th century was characterized by a growing economic development, the transition of a feudal system towards a business system, which we would know as capitalism. On the other hand, he developed reached the scientific plane, too;Although it was not as relevant as the nineteenth century was in the level of science, the economic rationalism of the 18th century was supported by the emergence of encyclopedia. "The great encyclopedia of Diderot and D´Alembert was not only a compendium of political and social progressive thought, but also of technical and scientific progress … the Enlightenment, had its strength, first and foremost, to the evident progress of production and trade, andto economic and scientific rationalism.”(Hobsbawm, 2005)

Illustration

It is clear the objective of the century of lights. The use of reason as a new way of directing us socially, of producing knowledge, of developing society and directing it;The reason served as a premise in all the thinkers of the Enlightenment. The governments were sought to criticize and seek the union of people. It was sought to educate society to get out of the old regime, get out of ignorance from which absolutism was held to legitimize.

A clear example of this is the ideology that Voltaire developed. When suffering an exile life, due to his political ideas, in which he expressed criticism of the regime, he sought the permanence of freedom of expression. Supported free expression and freedom of thought for social welfare.

The basis of this thought was to seek the other freedoms that individuals must have. To Voltaire the freedom to express ourselves would allow the individual to express their ideas and generate a flow of knowledge and debate, and eventually achieve other freedoms.

Evolution of thought

During the development of this work, the evolution of thought has been learned, as far as political philosophy is concerned. The social contexts of the predecessor centuries to the century of lights, gave the guideline to several thinkers to seek an explanation of social-political life. Contractualism and enlightenment were combined to give the guideline to our modern thinking, the way we assimilate the natural state of man, the formation of state and social life, and helped to understand rationalism and take it to practice.

The contributions of thinkers such as Hobbes, John Locke, Rousseau, among others, glimpsed the future of social science, such as political science and sociology, and eventually a current of thought that became a social, political and economic revolution inEurope during the 18th century.

These contributions were not consolidated there, eventually the debate opened among others, as is the case of Montesquieu. The author along with other contractualists, contributed the meaning of the laws of things and brought with him a consecration in the field of politics.

To talk about Montesquieu you have to be clear what their premises were. Montesquieu talks about laws, and understands them as natural relations derived from the nature of things. In other words, as soon as we are natural beings, we all have a legality, bone, laws. In that sense, laws are norms adhered to the naturalness of things.

The laws, as we mentioned, are norms that attached to the naturalness of things, in that sense, Montesquieu defines, or understands the spirit of these laws as the relationship they have with all the elements or variables that play in nature. That is, the law in governments is derived from human reason and as printed in them, therefore it is necessary to contemplate the particular variables of each people, to just apply the laws.

Laws must be adapted to governments, to the climate of the people, to religion, etc., And that will give their peculiarity of these laws.

It is this relationship between laws and factors, what Montesquieu calls how the spirit of laws. If we understand this, it will be clearer to understand that Montesquieu appea.

Following this line, Montesquieu makes an analysis of the different states that he recognizes: the monarchist, the Republican and the despotic. For Montesquieu, each state system has its own particular norms, and thus, its own characteristics. The former are based on honor, the second on virtue and despotic in fear. With this nature each of them operates, and they are oriented in their particularity.

Now, although it understands them as government devices with their own operating laws, there is also the possibility of failing or deforming: the Republican government, for example: it would find its deformation in an exaggerated equity;If its parts are so equitable that there is no order of operation. On the other hand, the monarchical government could find its lack of functioning when legitimacy is lost, that is, the sovereign’s title is no longer recognized and this sees the need for arbitrariness. Finally, for Montesquieu, the despotic government is corrupted in a more violent or abrupt way, since despotism is corrupted with more despotism.

So, he also defined the three powers that must belong to each state. “The Legislative… the prince or the magistrate makes laws, for some time or forever, and corrects and repeals those that exist. For the second, it makes peace or war, sends or receives embassies, ensures security, prevents invasions. For the third, punish the crimes or judges the lawsuits of individuals. The latter must be called a judiciary and the other simply executive power ”(Montesquieu, 2000)

This definition and division of powers within the State becomes crucial in Montesquieu’s thinking, since it is what helps strengthen an idea of political freedom of political freedom. For the author, freedom is defined and regulated through the power of the State. Political freedom, says Montesquieu, is not based on doing whatever you want, but on "doing what you should want, and not being forced to do what you should not love" (Montesquieu, 2000) in this sense,Freedom is determined by the possibilities allowed by laws, since if this freedom allowed to do what laws prohibit, the same capacity for all would be involved, which would mean a lack of freedom.

In this sense, well -made political freedom is a government where you are not afraid of the other, or its actions.

This notion of a certain "control" in the freedoms of people, by the institutionalization of lawthat there is the balance between freedom and independence. The division of the State into three powers, is the consecrating analysis of the work. Obviously we find it in our modern state, the validity and evolution of thought that Montesquieu produced, has helped to form a theoretical tradition in the field of sociology, political science and law and law.

The analysis that Montesquieu makes regarding the three powers and political freedom, specifically in his book XI of the spirit of laws, is extremely exhaustive, but for this work it will not be necessary to describe each quality and duty of the three powers mentioned. With the simple fact of mentioning the relevance in the context of the Enlightenment and the inheritance that left for the other thinkers will be sufficient.

Montesquieu’s thesis that expressed were linked to the defense of the Republic, we had to appeal to democracy and the sovereignty of the people, to end the sovereignty of only one that was fully lived even in France.

Despite the proposals, the monarchy and the power of the sovereigns did not end completely: now the monarch used the arguments of the enlightened to continue in their possession, took advantage of the ideas of progress and democracy to legitimize their stayas sovereign.