On Montesquieu's Problem Of Despotic Regimes

Montesquieu's three key works are very different from each other in style and color. But, there is a problem they all concerned, the problem of despotic regimes. In order to understand Montesquieu's theory totally and catch his jurisprudence thought better, this paper is devoted to the study on the problem of despotic regimes in Montesquieu's works, as well as the study on Montesquieu's judgment, that despotic regimes are natural in Asia, which isn't be of no well to our country's current socialism law system construction. For, it would enable us, based on our country's current condition, face the problem such as native resources and law transplanting in the project of rule of law more coolly and reasonably.Also, it's not possible to treat all of the problems above deeply. So, as a basic study and a start, this paper is characterized by its analysis on the logic structure in method, and mainly interested in Montesquieu's problematic idea of the problem of despotic regimes. That's why I hadn't treated the three books successively by their publish dates, instead by the order as below: the most clearly post of Montesquieu's problem of despotic regimes; a preparatory resolve from Montesuieu's writings on Montesquieu's problem of despotic regimes; the jurisprudential interpretation of the problem and the hope for its resolve.Part one. It is believed that Montesquieu had posted the problem of despotic regime most deeply in Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline. It is very impressed for despotic regime in this book by the comparison between the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline.Part two. It's told a story happened in Usbeic's seraglio in Persian Letters, it pictured how the seraglio authority did hold its order and, how finally its order collapsed. It implied that, it's why a despotic regime seemed such a failure, that, a despotic regime didn't based on a real basis, which could found in Montesquieu's the laws of nature. as soon as men were in society, because of the four of the laws of nature, they got powerful, and started a state of law. Laws were established in order to prevent the breakdown of the society, and men formed political associations.Part three. But, how the despotic regime exist either, though it is such a failure, what's more, Montesquieu hadn't call for a revolution to drop it either. It is a question about liberty and order in the light of Montesquieu's Jurisprudence, which seems a problem men have to face for ever. But, Montesquieu suggested some hope for its resolve by his theory of the laws of nature: men's liberty based on their reason. The best laws such as Roman republic laws, didn't based themselves on the right basis, reason, that's why they all failed in resolving the conflict of liberty and order, even fall in to despotic regime. Commerce and war strengthen and motivate people; however, commerce and war are not the same, commerce improves reason, it seems to have an splendid future. Therefore, the regimes built on the basis of commerce get real basis of political associations. The emergence of commerce made Montesquieu believe that, it is hopeful for resolving the problem of despotic regimes.Since Montesquieu criticized the readers, who were used to judge the book by a moment's reading implicitly, and thus worried about his book's fate; it is mainly depended on the method of text analysis in this paper, to interpret Montesquieu's key works totally. But, such a thing is not so simple, because he suggested several times that, he would not say everything when he wrote. This makes his readers and commentators can hardly understand his thought and theory deeply enough in any single book of his. So, certain question was studied through the comparison of Montesquieu's different works in this paper, in order to make up one of his certain discussion he didn't completed in one of his works by what he had completed in his another work. Maybe, it is possible to perceive and understand Montesquieu's theory totally, by such continuously comparison, cutting and making up.