I can summarize in three sentences the political philosophy of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). He outlined his political ideas in several essays, giving many historical examples, but the ideas themselves are straightforward.
First, when good people govern, everything will be fine, irrespective of the political system. Second, even the very best political system can be abused by bad people. Third, since it is inevitable that, now and then, some bad people gain political power, abuses can be prevented or minimized by distributing power amongst various institutions.
Like Aristotle had previously done in his work “Politics”, Montaigne passed review to the different political systems. He was aware of the advantages and disadvantages of democracy, monarchy and aristocracy, but failed to make a choice.
In all political systems, argued Montaigne, one can find bad and good examples. For instance, during the Roman Empire, which is a variant of monarchy, we can find a few excellent rulers such as Marcus Aurelius (161-180 AD).
Montaigne’s call for ethics in political philosophy
Marcus Aurelius was not perfect, but overall, he exercised power with a deep sense of morality. Instead of adopting a totalitarian attitude, he practised justice and moderation. He worked hard to run the empire effectively, instead of simply enjoying his own wealth.
Montaigne acknowledged that good monarchs like Marcus Aurelius represent the exception, not the rule. History offers us plenty of examples of tyrannical kings and emperors.
In ancient Rome, Nero (37-68 AD) was the archetypical bad emperor. He was arrogant, tyrannical and erratic. I categorize him as a psychopath. It is almost a miracle that someone like Marcus Aurelius became emperor a few generations later.
What about democracy? Does it guarantee that only good people come to power? Montaigne remained sceptical, arguing that history provides few examples of excellent elected leaders such as Pericles (495-429 BC).
Why did Montaigne regard Pericles as a rarity? Because Pericles possessed characteristics that seldom go together. On the one hand, he was honest, dedicated, and willing to promote the arts. On the other hand, he was sufficiently diplomatic and patient to navigate the complexities of Athenian politics.
Michel de Montaigne’s views on good rulers
Montaigne considered good rulers as lucky wins in a lottery that is heavily biased towards political abuse. Even when some genius like Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) comes along, no one can guarantee good results.
While Alexander succeeded in bringing Greek civilization to eastern territories, his volatile character would prevent him from building enduring political structures. We shouldn’t forget that, in a fit of rage, he had killed his friend Clitus. That’s just one example of his mental instability. There are many others.
Montaigne’s political views are spread in several essays. For example, his essay “On the power of the imagination” gives us insights on the psychological factors that influence rulers. In contrast, his essay “On moderation” calls for rulers to embrace prudence, balance, and self-restraint.
What’s the key lesson to be drawn from Montaigne’s essays on politics? That good people could potentially become rulers, but their own virtue steers them away from a career in politics.
Montaigne’s essay “That we get carried away by emotions”
The ancient Greek philosopher Thales once stated that he had not gotten married because it would distract him from his interest in philosophy. Thales compared a wife to good wine that, when readily available, becomes a constant temptation. In the same logic, Thales steered away from a career in politics.
If Thales didn’t trust himself to resist temptation, what about Socrates (470-399 BC). Plato had noted that Socrates had a remarkable patience and reacted leisurely at the nagging from his wife Xanthippe, but for Montaigne, patience alone does not constitute a sufficient basis for a political career.
According to Montaigne, the flaws in politicians’ characters should be traced to the general difficulty for humans to do the right thing consistently. Montaigne addressed this issue in his essay “That we get carried away by emotions,” which mentions Thales’ comparison of marriage with good wine.
Montaigne points to Queen Zenobia of ancient Palmyra as a rare example of an individual who, confronted with extreme adversity, is still able to remain graceful and dignified.
Very few people are capable of doing the right thing in good and bad days, concludes Montaigne. In ancient Greece, the philosopher Diogenes was capable of reacting to insults with indifference, but most politicians would react with rage, hatred and vindictiveness.
In those cases, wars, pestilence, and famine are the likely result. Pericles was able to maintain his composure when faced with the death of his sons, but we cannot expect such serenity from most politicians.
In order to prevent imprudent, short-sighted decisions, it is advisable to distribute power amongst various institutions. The recommendation given by Montaigne matches one hundred per cent the conclusion reached by Aristotle in his work “Politics.”
Our passions, wrote Montaigne, are like strong winds that carries ships away from their course. That’s the reason why we shouldn’t expect a consistent excellent behaviour from anyone.
It pays off beautifully to remain cool and rational in the face of difficulties, but I agree with Montaigne that we tend to panic and overreact. Our minds tend to exaggerate dangers and miss opportunities. The examples given above drive this point home in the area of political philosophy.
What’s the best course of action? Practice, practice, practice and then some. I mean self-practice in moderation, serenity, and risk diversification. Those can prove more helpful than a hundred years devoted to studying philosophical theory.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in today’s situations, I recommend you my book “Rational living, rational working.”