For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222

ENLIGHTENED DESPOTISM.
  Term Paper ID:25830 		Get This Paper Free! or
Essay Subject:
Examines theory, 3 examples (Frederick the Great of Prussia, Catherine the Great of Russia & President Franklin Roosevelt), benefits, problem of succession.... More...
7 Pages / 1575 Words
4 sources, 9 Citations, TURABIAN Format
$28.00

More Papers on This Topic


Paper Abstract:
Examines theory, 3 examples (Frederick the Great of Prussia, Catherine the Great of Russia & President Franklin Roosevelt), benefits, problem of succession.

Paper Introduction:
The political doctrine of enlightened despotism, after enjoying great prestige in the 18th century, has fallen on hard times in the 19th and 20th centuries. On the level of political theory, it was eclipsed first, in the late 18th century and through much of the 19th century, by the doctrine of limited constitutionalism, whether republican or constitutional monarchy. In the 20th century, it has been eclipsed even more forcibly by the doctrine of democracy. Even political systems that are in practice purely despotic now tend to veil themselves in the forms of parliamentary democracy. Thus, few today will say a good word for despotism, enlightened or otherwise. Yet a strong argument can be made that, in practice, only an enlightened despot can intelligently solve a country's problems, particularly when that country is

Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.


In the early 18th century, Prussia appeared to be something of ahistorical accident. He concerned himself with the civil as wellas military development of his country; for example, he abolished the useof torture in judicial proceedings, established religious toleration, andabolished censorship of the press.[1] His remark on freedom of the presswas nearly encapsulated the spirit of enlightened despotism: "I do what Ilike, and the people say what they like."[2] In his military activities, while he doubtless enjoyed the personalglory of command, and sometimes outraged European opinion by hiscombination of boldness and deviousness in his military and diplomaticmoves,[3] the objective he consistantly pursued was to secure and round outthe frontiers of the Prussian state, establishing it as the leading forcewithin Germany and as a European Great Power. He attempted (thoughunsuccessfully) to "pack" the Supreme Court after it ruled against some ofhis policies, and broke the unwritten rule against a president running formore than two consecutive terms--only after his death did his Republicanopponents succeed in writing that rule into the Constitution. He was anintellectual of sufficient stature to maintain a long friendship with theFrench philosopher Voltaire. In this she had much in common with Frederick of Prussia,including a friendship with Voltaire, who first dubbed her "the Great."She reorganized the army and navy, and established educationalinstitutions, including the Russian Academy--to the presidency of which sheremarkably appointed a woman, Princess Ekaterina Dashkova.[6] In thesocial world of the 18th century, and particularly in Russia, only a despotcould have made so bold a move as appointing a woman to such a position.Most fundamentally, Catherine largely completed Peter the Great's work oftransforming backward Russia into a Great Power, a status it would retainuntil the 199 s, and may well regain. Millions might still be without jobs,but they were no longer simply abandoned to their fate. [7]William Manchester, The Glory and the Dream (New York: Bantam,1974), 77. Some consideration will then begiven to the core problem of enlightened despotism, that of succession. FDR was able to rule in a quasi-despotic manner because the electionof 1932, in the depths of the Greaat Depression, had returned so large aDemocratic majority to Congress that the division of powers written intothe Constitution was rendered largely ineffective; moreover, the sheerimpact of the crisis had left the public desperate for action. (New York: E.P.Dutton, 1977) 94. The Glory and the Dream. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. A possible solution might be found in a form of elective monarchy,typified by the Papacy. The problem remains, however, of how toprovide a supply of enlightened despots. In thissystem may be seen the outline of a constitutional structure capable ofproviding, so far as is possible, for a succession of enlightened despots.As such, it is at least worthy of serious thought and consideration. Even the Austrian Empire,though lacking these characteristics, had at least a long and distinguishedhistory and tradition behind it. Thus, few today will say a good word for despotism, enlightened orotherwise. On the level of political theory, it was eclipsed first, in thelate 18th century and through much of the 19th century, by the doctrine oflimited constitutionalism, whether republican or constitutional monarchy.In the 2 th century, it has been eclipsed even more forcibly by thedoctrine of democracy. Inthe early 193 s, only in the United States, where FDR, though an electedrepublican leader, ruled in much the manner of an enlightened despot, wasenergetic action taken against the Great Depression. Catherine the Great. Later, during theSecond World War, similar quasi-despotic power allowed the United States tomobilize its economic power (as did Churchill's Britain) more thoroughlythan even the overtly despotic Nazi Germany.[9] These examples demonstrate the ability of enlightened despotism,whether formal or informal, to achieve reforms and respond to emergencieson a level not achievable by leaders more hemmed in by (effective)constitutional restrictions. His contemporary, Catherine the Great of Russia, is now best knownfor the salacious stories told about her. Nobroad theory of enlightened despotism can be attempted within the narrowconfines of this essay, but some attempt may be made to outline its basicprinciples, and demonstrate that it is a valid alternative that should notbe dismissed out of hand. New York: RandomHouse, 1987.Manchester, William. For France the drift wasfatal; the Third Republic was divided and paralysed to the very end, andpaid the price in 194 . Peter was possiblyfeebleminded, possibly insane; on the empress' death, the princessoverthrew her husband. From these 18th centuries of formal, overt enlightened despotism, wemay turn to the 2 th century case of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. New York: Harper & Row, 197 .Troyat, Henri. New York: Bantam, 1974.Mitford, Nancy. The remainder of this essay will consider instances of enlighteneddespotism, from the classic 18th-century examples of Frederick the Great ofPrussia and Catherine the Great of Russia, to the enlightened quasi-despotism of FDR in the 2 th century. She later wrote that "it was a question of eitherperishing with him or through him, or else saving myself, my children andperhaps the State, from the shipwreck that was foretold by every moral andphysical attribute of this Prince."[4] She took the throne and the nameEkaterina (Catherine), after the last wife of Peter the Great, one of themany steps--beginning with learning the language--that she took to identifyherself with Russia and the Russian people.[5] As a state, Russia was despotic but inchoate, only half-dragged intothe modern world by Peter the Great. [8]Ibid. In hisinaugural address, FDR made his quasi-despotic intentions clear: "I shallask the Congress," he said, "for the one remaining instrument to meet thecrisis--broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as greatas the power that would be given me if we were in fact invaded by a foreignfoe."[7] Eleanor Roosevelt noted that those lines drew the greatestapplause from the crowd.[8] FDR was, in effect, asking for theauthority to rule by decree. The papal system of election by a College ofCardinals, themselves appointed by the Pope, has seldom in modern timesproduced any serious failures, and in the past half-century has producedthe dynamic papacies of John XXIII, Paul IV, and John Paul I. Catherine set out to complete theprocess. Britain only narrowly escaped this fate, turningat the eleventh hour from the parliamentary compromiser, NevilleChamberlain, to Winston Churchill, who like FDR governed in effect as anenlightened despot. [5]Ibid., 49-5 . [9]Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (New York:Random House, 1987), 353-56.----------------------- 9 Even political systems that are in practice purelydespotic now tend to veil themselves in the forms of parliamentarydemocracy. The purely economic effect of the New Deal is disputed, but assuggested earlier, the broader effect was to stem the drift and despairthat had settled over the country. While it is true that nationalism in the senseof a formal ideology still lay in the future, most of the European GreatPowers, such as France and Britain, corresponded to distinct, long-established geographical and cultural entities. [3]Ibid., 97. [2]Ibid., 86. New York: E.P.Dutton, 1977.----------------------- [1]Nancy Mitford, Frederick the Great (New York: Harper & Row, 197 ),85-86. Yet a strong argument can be made that, in practice, only anenlightened despot can intelligently solve a country's problems,particularly when that country is faced with a crisis. FDR wasnot a despot in the formal sense, to be sure; he was elected under Americanconstitutional system, and never abrogated the Constitution. The naturaltendency of a republican or parliamentary system is toward compromise andputting off hard decisions, which works well enough in good times, but in acrisis leads to paralysis. She was able to do so only by rulingas an enlightened despot. She was born Sophia Augusta ofAnhalt-Zerbst, a minor German principality, and married in her teens toPeter, son of the Empress Elizabeth of Russia. In spite of the disasters that Germany brought onitself in the first half of the 2 th century, modern Germany, arguably theleading power of Western Europe, owes its existence ultimately to theenlightened despotism of Frederick the Great. Frederick and Catherine werethrown up by dynastic accident, and FDR by an election that happened tocome at a moment of crisis. Frederick the Great. Most of these were invented andspread by her enemies; her actual career was a success bearing strikingcomparison to Elizabeth I of England--though the despotic power Catherineenjoyed allowed her to be open in her lifestyle, rather than wrappingherself in the fog of "virgin queen." Catherine was not born Russian; infact, she was not even born Catherine. Only a despot (whether formal or de facto) canin such conditions take forceful, risky decisions. He proceeded to establish policies thatamounted almost to a sort of benign fascism, typified by the CivilianConservation Corps and a host of other "alphabet soup" federal agencies.The combined effect of these was to vastly enlarge the federal government,and to enable him to make a broad range of decisions by executive order--that is, in fact and within only very broad limits, to rule by decree, as adespot. The political doctrine of enlightened despotism, after enjoying greatprestige in the 18th century, has fallen on hard times in the 19th and 2 thcenturies. BibliographyPaul Kennedy. Heis primarily remembered now as a brilliant general, a reputation thatcarries with it the negative connotation of "Prussian militarism." Infact, however, he was not simply a drill-sergeant writ large. The fruit of his efforts wasreaped in following generations; though Prussia itself was defeated andoverrun by Napoleon, its heroic resistance confirmed it as the center of adeveloping German nation, which was formally united in 1871 under thePrussian royal family. Joan Pinkham, tr. Thus, in the economic crisis of the 193 s and the drift toward theSecond World War, the Western democratic powers were largely paralysed. The purely economicsuccess of the New Deal may be questioned, but on a more fundamental levelit was successful: Americans in those years had a sense that someone was atthe helm, while France and Britain went adrift. In the first two cases, an autocratic systemsubsequently produced ineffectual or even disastrous rulers, while theAmerican constitutional system has, in most of the time since FDR, produced"divided government" often resulting in near-paralysis. [6]Ibid., 258. In contrast, one dynastic mishap or majorbattlefield mishap, and Prussia might simply have dissolved back into itscomponent principalities. [4]Henri Troyat, Catherine the Great, Joan Pinkham, tr. Cobbled together out of several fragments of themedieval Holy Roman Empire, it had a good army, built up by King FrederickWilliam, but it had neither readily defensible borders nor any particularnational reason for being. Into this situation stepped Frederick William's son, Frederick. Neverthelesshe showed many of the attributes of a despot.

If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:

Search for:

or

We can write a Custom Essay just for you.


Browse Essays by Subject