Montesquieu’s writings on political philosophy are by far his most famous and cited. In fact, his discourse on separation of powers within government inspired many constitutional framers such as George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison to vest power in three separate, distinct bodies. 243 years later, the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are entrusted with the duty of preserving American freedom—reflecting Montesquieu’s core principles of political philosophy. These ideas are derived from Montesquieu’s “De l'esprit des lois” (Spirit of the Laws) published at the height of the Enlightenment period in 1748. In which, he presents one of his most interesting views regarding how one should distinguish between Democratic, Monarchical, and Despotic forms of government. All of which he believes can be reduced to their “spirit of the laws”—the reigning sentiment motivating the laws of a civilized group of people. To this end, fear gives rise to despotism, virtue to a republic, and honor to a monarchy (1).

​

Montesquieu defines a republic as when “the body, or only part of the people” has sovereign power, or as he says: the “supreme power” (2). Likewise, all republics are characterized by a strong sense of patriotism and a “love for equality” (3). Republics can be broken down further into two kinds: democracies and aristocracies. The former is characterized by the body of the people possessing supreme power, and the latter by the “hands of the part of a people” who are typically the aristocracy (4). In a democracy, suffrage rights are fundamental to maintaining balanced liberty, as the people are both the sovereign and the subject (4). Without the right to suffrage, the people would lack a profound sense of love for the laws—which laws are intended to provide all individuals with “the same advantages” and “the same pleasures and form the same hopes” (5). Nevertheless, Democracy is not impermeable to power imbalances and must avoid excessive extreme equality and inequality. The Spirit of Inequality leads directly to aristocracy or monarchy. Montesquieu talks about The spirit of extreme equality in greater detail. He defines it as the idea that citizens should “obey or command our equals” and diminishes the authority of a master to “none but its equals” inevitably leading to despotism (6). In this case, democracy is so poorly regulated that men assume they are “equal as magistrates, as senators, as judges, as fathers, as husbands, or as masters” (6). In his “Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence” (Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline), he cites the Roman Empire’s territorial expansion as one of the great contributors to the erasure of their republican virtue (7). He argued that the Empire’s expansion past the Italian Peninsula transformed the psychology of its citizens and soldiers so that their “allegiance to the republic was replaced by allegiance to one general or another” (7). The second form is an Aristocratic Republic which is characterized by a body of nobles who assign laws and limit the virtue of the people more so than in a democracy. However, the constant challenge of restraining their power constantly plagues the nobility in this form of government. Montesquieu posits two solutions to this: “very eminent virtue” which brings the nobility closer to the level of the people, or “inferior virtue” which creates a hierarchy among the nobility which must be carefully preserved (8).

​

The nature of a monarchy, according to Montesquieu, is one person governing by fundamental and “fixed and established laws” (2). Second to the Monarch’s power is the nobility, who work hand in hand with the Monarch to achieve commonly held objectives. Montesquieu fully supported this relationship insofar as it forces the Monarch to maintain his constitution for the sake of the appeasement of the nobility, and that he does not venture into the capricious law-making of a despot. As a result, Montesquieu was highly critical of the English Parliament’s abolishment of “the privileges of the lords, the clergy and cities” and believed that without such, the despotic government was inevitable (9). However, Montesquieu suggests some power must extend beyond the nobility who are “naturally ignorant” because of their inattention to civil government to maintain a functioning monarchical government (9). He suggests that Monarchs adopt a “depositary of the laws” whose role is limited to publicizing and regulating new laws (9). In more familiar terms, some form of a judiciary branch is essential to maintaining this government. 

​

The third social institution he discusses is Despotism which places all political power into one person who rules “according to his own will and caprice” which causes the people to live in a state of fear (2). To Montesquieu, this is the most dangerous form of government as it poses the greatest threat to all facets of human progress and liberty. A despotic prince can only derive his power from a passive and blindly obedient population. Once this is obtained, he is free to disregard limitations, restrictions, terms, or any mode intended to hinder his supreme power. To Montesquieu, a prince who rules under no barriers is the most dangerous one, which is why he prefers a Monarchical government to a Despotic one. In a monarchial government, Princes rule by a set of fixed laws and depend on the nobility to uphold their legitimacy. He sees this type of barrier as a necessary evil that benefits the subjects (10). Montesquieu also emphasizes the incompatibility between honor and despotism and goes so far as to say that despotic governments “have not even a proper word to express [honor]” (11). He argues that since honor is rooted in selflessness and preservation of life, it can never exist in a system where all men are slaves to the dogma of their despot (11). In a system that seeks to deprive people of life, any value that does not make allegiance to the Prince supreme, including honor, cannot exist in such an arbitrary government.