Enlightened despotism: what it is and what political changes did it promote

Europe, considered a fiefdom of democracy, was not always like this. For a long time it was organized into absolutist monarchies, in which the king held all power and paid no attention to the situation of his people.

But this changed in the seventeenth century, with the appearance of the Enlightenment that, in the following century, would promote changes in the European political system, emerging enlightened despotism. Next we will see more in depth what it consists of, and what changes it implied for the time.

• Related article: "What is Political Psychology?"

What was enlightened despotism?

Enlightened despotism, also known as benevolent despotism or enlightened absolutism, is a political concept that refers to the style of government that many European countries took during the second half of the 18th century, in a world where the Old Regime was still present. This type of government combined aspects of classical absolutism with philosophical ideas of the French Enlightenment.

The appearance of enlightened despotism was a timid change with respect to the traditional absolutist system, in which the figure of the monarch was all-powerful. In this despotism,

the monarch continues to have absolute power, but acquires a more sensitive vision regarding his people, initiating reforms with the intention of improving their well-being, although always in a very moderate way and without abandoning a paternalistic perspective.

Changes in the treatment of its citizens, granting them greater freedoms, were not synonymous with loss of privilege for the aristocracy, nor a narrowing of the gap between the classes social. Of course, the idea that the absolutist monarchy would eventually be replaced by a democratic republic was unthinkable and totally contrary to the established order. Enlightened despotism was not intended to take away powers from the monarchy, but simply to promote some reforms.

The phrase that best sums up the mentality of this system of government is that of "Everything for the people, but without the people" ("Tout pour le peuple, rien par le peuple" in French). This would mean that reforms had to be carried out to increase people's satisfaction, promote knowledge, culture and wealth, but without the plebs having any involvement in the new measures, a class seen as chronically immature and mentally underage talking.

On absolutism and the Enlightenment

Before going into more depth about the origin and consequences of enlightened despotism, it is done It is necessary to briefly explain what absolutism is in its most classical aspect, and what is the Illustration.

Absolutism

Absolutism is the modern name that has been assigned to the types of governments of the Old European Regime.

In the vast majority of countries at that time, sovereigns held full state power. There was no public control of what the king did, being himself the one who decided how his kingdom worked.

This idea is well summarized in a phrase said by Louis XIV, King of France, who is considered the maximum exponent of what a prototypical absolutist monarchy is: “The state is me” (“L’État, c’est moi ”).

Illustration

The Enlightenment was a philosophical, artistic and scientific movement that emerged in Europe, after the Renaissance. In this cultural movement its thinkers firmly believed in human reason and in the progress of society.

This thought arose in France in the seventeenth century, although it did not remain solely in the Gallic country. It had a huge impact on other European countries and even crossed the Atlantic settling in the European colonies.

How did this system of government originate?

This form of self-government at the end of the old regime originated in the second half of the 18th century. Its appearance was not due to a voluntary proposal from the European monarchs, who were practically all-powerful. The reason these kings and emperors initiated reforms in their respective states were the criticisms received from enlightened philosophers, critical of the traditional functioning of classical absolutism, which fostered inequalities and injustices.

It is not that these philosophers, or at least most of them, wanted the arrival of the republics. They simply believed that no sovereign should allow the people to endure hardships. It was a humanistic opinion, so to speak. These thinkers were in favor of a gradual change in governmental structures, in order to prosper towards a more modern and rational society, but without renouncing the figure of the monarch.

The change had to come from above, so that it would be peaceful and controllable. A popular revolution, from the perspective of the philosophers of the moment, would imply a change that was too profound and unexpected for the whole of society, and dangerous. It was necessary for the monarchs to initiate reforms to keep the society as a whole, and thus ensure that change, something that had always been feared, was beneficial.

For this reason, whether it was with the empathic argument of not wishing the mob any harm, or the argument of fear, that it would revolutionize, the monarchs listened to the philosophers. It was far better to keep the subjects happy, and improve their lives a little, than to give them the feeling that the sovereign cared little about his situation, and wait for them to rebel against him. It is here that enlightened despotism itself arises.

Enlightened despotism it would never have been achieved had it not been for an unwritten pact between two social classes, apparently antagonistic, who held power. The nobility, their highest representative being the monarch, had held power for centuries. But they faced the problem that, despite having noble titles, these were not as important as money, something that they did have large numbers of the bourgeoisie, and that it was becoming the pillar of what would end up being society capitalist.

• You may be interested: "The 5 ages of History (and their characteristics)"

Main illustrated monarchs

Among the main illustrated monarchs we find several European sovereigns, such as Carlos III of Spain, José I of Portugal, José II of Austria, María Teresa I of Austria, Gustav III of Sweden, Louis XIV of France, Frederick II of Prussia and, surely the most notable, Catherine II of Russia, great patron of Russia Imperial.

Some of these monarchs did not work alone. In fact, there are not few figures of illustrated philosophers or other thinkers who are working as the right hand of a sovereign, being the case of the Marquis of Pombal in Portugal, Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos in Spain or Bernardo Tanucci in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

Limitations of enlightened despotism

As one might have thought, above all due to the fact that in Europe today most countries are republics or constitutional monarchies, enlightened despotism, enlightened despotism did not last forever, and that was due to their limitations.

The most notable was the fact that failing to structure society in a more democratic and egalitarian wayAs no privileges were taken away from the nobility and the people, despite some modest improvements, continued to suffer. However, the successes in areas such as administration, economics and education were remarkable.

The monarchy was willing to give in in various fields, but not at all to break with the traditional caste system of the Old Regime. The nobility was the nobility, the clergy were the clergy and the common people were the common people., thus it had been and thus it should be. No matter how many reforms were made, taking privileges away from the nobility or giving them to the people was something unthinkable, unnatural.

That is why, although within the plebs there would always be someone happy with the new reforms, others saw how the monarchy I really did not want their well-being or, if I did, it was rather seeing them as little children who must be cared for, and who never mature. And the people got tired, and as a consequence of this, the most radical acts that we expose below began.

Consequences

Clearly, the change in mentality that occurred during the Enlightenment, generating the change from classical absolutism to enlightened despotism, had great benefits for European sciences and artsNot a few monarchs who behaved as great patrons, allowing great technological and cultural advances.

Many rights were won, such as greater ideological and religious freedom, in addition to having greater freedom of expression. Scientists could experiment without fear that their new discoveries would be censored by religious organizations, while the philosophers could think and express what they had concluded to. Of course, Western civilization was advancing by leaps and bounds. And it was those leaps and bounds that would end the system itself.

Giving greater freedoms to scientists, artists and, especially, philosophers would have great freedoms to investigate, think and express oneself, supposed, ironically, the beginning of the end of many monarchies absolutists. Many thinkers saw that they could aspire to more and that, although they had more freedom than before, many of the changes were not as beneficial as might be expected.

The nobles would still have many privileges, which would make the bourgeoisie think, especially, of the need for more radical changes. This thought would be the one that would sow the seeds of the French Revolution of 1789, with events as unthinkable decades before as the storming of the Bastille, the proclamation of the French Republic and the execution of the French kings, Louis XVI and his wife Marie Antoinette.

Bibliographic references:

• León Sanz, V. (1989). Illustrated Europe, pp. 49-52, 138. AKAL editions.
• Delgado de Cantú, G. M. (2005). The modern and contemporary world, p. 253. Pearson Education.
• Martínez Ruiz, E; Giménez, E. (1994). Introduction to Modern History, pp. 545-569. AKAL editions.