The Age of Enlightenment ushered in a new era of political consciousness in Europe. The destiny of the Western world would no longer be limited to the clergy and their confused notions of divine command theory – rational intellectualism instead sought to reform political communities. New concepts of the state and secular governance emerged throughout the Age of Enlightenment, as the era of theocratic empires began to end and modern political theories based on rational logic took center stage. A wide range of educated elites produced hundreds of dogmatic texts, letters, refutations, and hypotheses, either in the search for a more ideal society or in criticism of the political status quo. These new ideas were published and disseminated widely, influencing urban societies, mobilizing new movements, and influencing public discourse on issues of legitimate authority. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The French Revolution, in particular, represented an epicenter of ideological revolutions in history, as popular effort sought to bring about radical political change. In a short time, the French managed to overthrow their long-standing monarchy, move away from their feudal society, and minimize the authority of religious bodies. But the revolution was not a bed of roses, as several republics and administrative orders emerged subsequently, lasting only short periods before French society turned to new leaders and new political formulas. . Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Edmund Burke, two renowned Enlightenment theorists, were both writing in the 18th century. Rousseau's philosophy became a major influence on the French Revolution, while Burke's work intellectually rebuked the revolt while it was in its infancy. Without exploring the legitimacy or lack thereof of this or other revolutions, it is important to establish that the theories of Rousseau and Burke diverged on some fundamental questions of governance. This article examines one of James Madison's key doctrines on the ideal purpose and limits of government, and establishes that the works of Rousseau and Burke, while in some way consistent with Madison's expression, would fundamentally answer differently from each other. is the following: "When we develop a government which must be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: we must first allow the government to control the governed, and then oblige it to control itself himself.” We can further divide this expression into three main ideas: 1) a government “administered by men over men”; which amounts to recognizing that in a secular system, neither God nor a sovereign appointed by God are supposed to direct the political unit, 2) “to control the governed”; that is, to govern the people adequately, and 3) “to control oneself”; or to impose necessary restrictions and divisions on the power of the governing body to protect its citizens. Both Rousseau and Burke discuss the essential points above in their respective works and this article is therefore organized to reflect their responses to these ideas. Rousseau agrees with the idea that a regime governs by the will of men rather than that of God. While past societies in Christendom and elsewhere governed on the basis of Scripture or the mind of a divinely guided figure, Rousseau's Social Contract recognizes thatLaws should only come with the consent of the people. He brings up the example of the Roman decimvir commissioners, who would not pass their own laws, but rather proclaim: “Nothing we propose…can become law without your consent.” Romans, be yourselves the authors of the laws which should make you happy” (Rousseau, p. 164). An ideal republic for Rousseau forms its own laws through direct means rather than through a religious intermediary. Although some may consider Rousseau's Legislator as a quasi-or even pseudo-religious character; “extraordinary man” endowed with “superior intelligence”, the Legislator dominates men and the establishment of society, but not its laws, because this “would perpetuate its injustices” (Rousseau, pp. 162-163). In other words, the executive and legislative powers cannot be combined in one person without corruption arising, and therefore, the power to create laws “belongs to the people” (Rousseau, p. 173). Rousseau does not believe in the rule of divine legatees (Rousseau, pp. 76) and instead proposes a new civil religion. This civil religion would be simple enough to inclusively bind the masses of a secular political community, as the unity would be centered on its own social contract and the qualities of a constructive society. Accordingly, Rousseau believes that men must indeed govern men by their consent, as part of a collective social tradition of citizenship rather than a customary religion. Although Burke ultimately agrees with the idea that men should rule men without divine intermediaries, his response to this perception is different from Rousseau's. Namely, the place of God, the religious customs of society and the progression of history play an important role in his political theory. Burke discusses the role of “small platoons” (Burke, p. 41); a social unit linking the belonging of a citizen to his country. In his critique of the rebellion of the French Third Estate, which represented the vast majority of the French population, Burke argues that the deputation of the clergy and nobility would only confer French leadership to the "worst designs of the individuals of that class" ( Burke, pp. 40). Burke associates his idea of ​​"little platoons" with the clergy, identifying their institution not only as important to the social fabric of a society, but also as a venue through which naturally talented people can move up the hierarchy of a community. Dismantling these traditional institutions would only lead to chaos by handing power to those among the people who are not fit to receive it. Even though Burke recognizes the imminence of modernity and the ever-changing nature of a culture and society, he believes that recent anomalies can still be disguised as ordinary religious customs for the masses if properly framed, such as he cites an example involving a famously incongruous royal succession. (Burke, p. 16). Burke fully supports having a God-fearing society, because, in conjunction with the reverence of the institutions of monarchy, parliament, magistrates, priesthood and nobility are inseparable from the social makeup of his own country (Burke, pp. 75-76), which has “not yet been completely disemboweled from our natural bowels” (Burke, pp. 75). Therefore, while Rousseau completely trusts the general public to create their own laws, Burke wishes to preserve ancient institutions rooted in history in the governance of a political unit. Second, Rousseau's notion of control of the governed is a progressive vision created as he ponders the problems of modern political life. He notesthat at some point in history, social communities must have been shaped by conditions that bequeathed the interdependence of humans. This ultimately led to the submission of each nation to elders (lords) and magistrates, with “preference being given to the merit” of the state (Rousseau, pp. 76) to ensure the longevity of that society. However, this resulted in the marginalization of the happiness and well-being of the people and the formation of civil factions warring against each other. The “blood of citizens was sacrificed to the supposed happiness of the State” and the people were then “incapable of breaking their chains” (Rousseau, p. 76). Rousseau argues that these were the precepts of modern inequalities which must be reversed in an ideal republic. Otherwise, in the current system, the people would be even more violently divided against each other, and we would see "the defenders of the fatherland sooner or later become its defenders." enemies, brandishing a dagger at their citizens, and there would come a moment when we would hear them say to the oppressor of their country: "If you order me to plunge my sword into the breast of my brother or into the throat of my father, and into my pregnant wife the bowels of my wife, I will do it, even if my right hand does not want to” (pp. Rousseau 79). These words represent the desire of these factions to destroy their past, their present and their future for the sake of the despot. Rousseau instead proposes a new system whose “rule of administration in the civil order” would take “men as they are and the laws as they could be” (Rousseau, pp. 141). This order would therefore govern the authentic natural citizens that all humans can become, and would ensure the just objective of the laws; which are established for the protection of his people, and not merely for the comfort of a tyrant. Thanks to “perfectibility” (Rousseau, p. 59), humanity can acquire second natures through interaction with its environment. In this case, natural men can develop “social virtues” that those outside of modern society do not have (Rousseau, pp. 59). Finally, even though Rousseau did not believe that property was a fundamental human right like Locke, he still believed that property was a fundamental human right. citizens have a sacred right, as long as it corresponds to the general will. In an ideal State, “men all become equal by convention and by law,” unlike in failing governments, where the poor are suppressed and the rich are preferred (Rousseau, pp. 153). Burke, however, is more afraid of the masses and what modernity might push them to do if traditional hierarchies and customs were destroyed. Burke particularly fears the fever of unregulated freedom that was unleashed among the French revolutionaries. To this end, he emphasizes that the total freedom of a society is harmful: the French had a government under its monarch, but through its dismantling, the unbridled freedom of the people can descend into chaos. Burke brings up the example of an uncontrolled maniac: “May I now congratulate the same nation on its freedom? Is it because freedom, in the abstract, can be ranked among the blessings of humanity, that I must seriously help a madman, who has escaped from the protective constraint and salutary darkness of his cell? , to rediscover the enjoyment of light and freedom. (Burke, p. 7) Just as mental control can restrict a madman's liberties, so must a just government compensate its control over the people; otherwise, anarchy could arise. For Burke, it is the social and political emergence of individualism that provokes insurrection against government and the destruction of traditional bonds. Therefore, revolutionsModern, ideologically driven diseases are a contagion that must be contained. Instead, Burke proposes that traditional institutions be maintained: monarchy is evil only in the eyes of those who expect complete freedom, and the people should further find refuge in religion, laws, and morals. (Burke, p. 12). After all, to go against these traditional institutions is to “wag war on heaven itself” (Burke, p. 9). While modernity is an unstoppable force, Burke argues that aristocrats should accept progressive changes, while masking them in the nostalgic spirit of the past. To go further, he evokes his allegory of the venerable castle, whose foundations can be repaired from time to time, the structure itself remains unchanged: "Your constitution, it is true, while you were out of possession, suffered of waste and disrepair; but you possessed in some parts the walls and in all the foundations of a noble and venerable castle. You could have repaired these walls; you could have built on those old foundations…” (Burke, p. 31). Here he compares the constitution of a State to a castle: their antiquity must be preserved, even if their maintenance is up to standard. People who destroy this are like "children tearing apart an aging parent" (Burke, p. 84), who will only necessarily fall into pandemonium and, of necessity, try to "renovate" or rejuvenate ancient traditions into a modern and inauthentic form. Furthermore, Burke prefers the controlling and peacemaking effect of organized religion, as it establishes an established hierarchy, organizes and guides meetings. for the masses and produces a binding legacy for the entire nation. After all, “man is, by his constitution, a religious animal; against which atheism is” (Burke, pp. 80). Therefore, Burke believes that men must be governed by long-standing institutions of leadership and religion, with gradual and unsuspected changes, because of their connection to the social fabric of a society. Madison's third point requires governments to restrain themselves through checks and balances. Rousseau, like Madison, criticizes factions because of their tendency to interfere with the public good. In order to prevent the oppression of a minority faction by the consent of the majority, Rousseau establishes the notion of general will in his Social Contract. The general will is the “constant will of all members of the State”; which means that it is only what all citizens agree on, such as the fundamental guarantees of freedom and protection (Rousseau, p. 206). Furthermore, all laws must be validated by the general will: "When a law is proposed to the popular assembly, what is asked of it is not precisely whether it approves or rejects it, but whether it is whether or not it conforms to the general will. » (Rousseau, p. 206) The purpose of this system is to ensure the fundamental integrity of the people, because an ideal government should not have the power to pass laws that restrict the freedoms or security of members of the 'State. Rousseau emphasizes the desire of his theoretical State to “unite… in order to protect the weak from oppression, to restrain the ambitious and to ensure to each person the possession of what belongs to him” (Rousseau, p. 69). Thus, the general will is the fundamental political association that transcends partisanship rather than the sum of particular wills. Rousseau's concept is therefore in full agreement with Madison, because even though a government has power over its people and vice versa, there are sufficient checks and balances. which limit the abuses of a State against its population. Burke, however, puts forward the idea of ​​an aristocracy.