It is fortunate for men to be in a situation in which, though their passions may prompt them to be wicked, they have nevertheless an interest in not being so.

Name	Charles de Secondat Montesquieu
Life	1689 - 1755
Country	France
Category	Realism
Wikipedia	>>

If neither prayers, cynicism nor laughs can cure the evil nature of fallen man, what can we hope for? We have to live with brute passions, inherited from our animal genes. That is how Machiavelli and Erasmus today can be understood. But cannot the "reason", the intelligence, on which Mirandola put his bet, be useful in moderating the most brutal expressions of our passionate behavior? Montesquieu came back to that question of Mirandola. Most of history has been a political power struggle for life or death. With emerging trade and capitalism, it became clear to our "reason" that both sides of a deal could gain economically, that it was in the interest of each side to keep the other alive and well. Ruthless political competition gave way to somewhat less ruthless economic competition. Cold murder gave way to mutually beneficial, even reciprocally altruistic behavior. The emotional oppression of feudalism and religious fanaticism gave way to the cold calculations of capitalism. This is how Montesquieu understood his time. The wise Samuel Johnson supported him in saying that "There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money." Montesquieu lived in a dangerous time. Copernicus did not dare to publish his revolutionary heliocentric "De Revoltionibus" until on his death bed in 1543. Bruno was burned in 1600. Galileo had to retract his truth in 1633. Descartes was most careful in his writing, scared of a similar destiny. Locke spent a long time in exile. Mandelville was much bespatted. Montesquieu clearly saw the dangerous strength of our biological passions, not least in the supreme rulers. Against the

advice of his friends he published the first edition of his great book, The Spirit of the Laws, in 1748. But his prudence bade him to do so anonymously, with a quote from Ovid, ".. prolem sine matre creatam", no mother around! To that book we owe one of the most important ideas of Western political philosophy, the division of power. Montesquieu distrusted power. Power and evilness come very close to each other. Power corrupts in a viscous circle. Those who have too much of it are always tempted by the Devil. And most fall for temptations! Better not have too much concentrated power around! How to avoid it? If man's nature is biologically given, if you cannot cure evil power ambition in him, you can at least try to rein it in with good legal institutions. If evil is bound to appear from the inside of man, let us put up a strong outside fence against it, like we do for lions in zoological gardens. Montesquieu suggested that supreme power should be divided into three parts. A legislative organ, a parliament, should make the laws. An executive power, a government, should realize them. To check both, a judicial power should be strong enough to ensure that the actions of the two others conformed to the constitution of the land. This is Montesquieu's truly great idea. It was, for instance, incorporated in the constitution of the United States of America in 1787, where it still stands and still supports the unusually stable democracy of that nation. In more general terms, what Montesquieu said might thus be simplified: Never trust the power of one man! Put three at the top, so that two of them can throw out the third before his natural human inclination for evil, for absolute monotheistic power, becomes too strong! That is where we still are!