In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • The Politics of Place: Montesquieu, Particularism, and the Pursuit of Liberty by Joshua Bandoch
  • Henry C. Clark
The Politics of Place: Montesquieu, Particularism, and the Pursuit of Liberty. By Joshua Bandoch. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2017. 264 pp.

In the long debate over whether Montesquieu was a relativist or an absolutist, Joshua Bandoch takes a middle position. He denies that Montesquieu favoured a specific constitutional form — whether monarchy, ancient republic, or aristocratic liberalism. But he also denies that Montesquieu's enterprise amounted to a 'politics of any-old-place' (pp. 4, 18). Instead, he sees a 'politics of place' centred on the unique features of each nation but tempered by a few broad norms. Like other recent commentators, Bandoch detects a worst regime in Montesquieu's scheme — despotism — but not a best one. This perspective in turn shapes the norms that every polity should pursue, namely 'security, liberty, and prosperity' (p. 4). Each of these norms means something different in each society. To understand such differences, the key is to grasp the esprit of each people; indeed, 'esprit is the chain that holds the work together' (p. 37). Bandoch's Montesquieu is not a Lockean, as he does not offer a robust theory of universal natural rights. He embraces a diversity of legal systems for a diversity of peoples. His view of human nature is 'flexible, though not totally breakable, like a wire bent into different shapes' (p. 33). Although security, liberty, and prosperity mean variable things, it seems they must always include the rule of law, constitutional checks and balances, moderate judicial punishments, and respect for the individual, including even specific guarantees such as 'indemnity and amortization' [End Page 114] (p. 69). Moderate government is the key to achieving Montesquieu's three key ends, and there are numerous constitutional forms that can produce such moderation, especially monarchies, mixed regimes, aristocratic republics, and federal republics — though not democracy, which has tended to render both liberty and security uncertain. Bandoch has an interesting discussion of the aristocratic republic, sometimes overlooked but laudable for its durability, moderation, and reliance upon merit. Bandoch's Montesquieu held the performance of legislators to a high standard: they were to 'promote positive political change' (p. 119), but do so by a systematically intimate understanding of the general esprit of their people. This esprit, according to Bandoch, takes form especially at the national level, although it avoids the pitfalls that befell modern nationalism after the teleological cult of the Hegelian Geist began to emerge. It does, however, impose real constraints on the legislator, including close scrutiny of immigration's effects on the national esprit and 'selective religious intolerance' (pp. 141, 146), contingent upon the probable civic effects of given faiths, especially proselytizing ones such as Islam and Christianity. In a final chapter, Bandoch suggests Montesquieu would frown upon some universalist versions of the American founding, especially those with an 'empire of liberty' flavour (p. 169). Despite some occasional, perhaps inescapable, ambiguities in the argument (is moderation a means to an end or an end in itself?), this tersely written monograph is generally sensible, thoughtful, tightly reasoned, and overall a worthy addition to the recent crop of Montesquieu studies.

Henry C. Clark
Dartmouth College
...

pdf

Share