Political Ideas: Burke and Babington

SECTION A

Introduction

The French Revolution

During the periods of 1789-1790, France was experiencing several political and social agitations in its political landscape – both at home and in its colonies. This phenomenon is mostly known as The French Revolution. According to Burke (2012), the French Revolution was characterized by political turmoil, violent period and saw the formation of a republic and an overthrowing of the monarchy. The revolution was basically a mass protest by the poor; also called the ‘third estate’ back then, against the increased cost of living and a political system that made the poor live in hard economic conditions. But from time immemorial, critics have emerged to argue against the whole phenomenon, some even arguing that the revolution was not even revolutionary. Besides, other critics have also claimed that the revolution was only meant to create a constitutional monarchy and believed that the Kingship was necessary for the proper functioning of the state. Against this background, the first section of this essay will focus on Burke’s criticism of the French Revolution, in an attempt to evaluate the historical background of political ideas. The entire section will be based on Edmund Burke’s book: Reflections on The Revolution of France, a book considered to be a comprehensive rendition of his criticism against the French Revolution. In the same spirit of evaluating the history of political ideas, the second section of this essay will make several commentaries on a political speech and how the speech relates to political thoughts.

Burkes’ Criticism of the French Revolution

Edmund Burke is today considered one of the originators of contemporary political conservatism. According to Goodman (2018), Burke’s defence of the merits of tradition, and criticisms against the French Revolution was widely viewed as clear support for conservatism. But it is important to note that in the initial periods, the French revolution had gained a lot of support especially in England (Masters, 2013). This is exemplified in the way some British scholars such as Richard Prince defended the phenomenon. However, Ralph et al (2017) opine that Burke’s criticisms against the revolution were a great blow to Richard Price. Now, in the following paragraphs, we explain the several arguments posed by Burke against the French revolution.

The first criticism Burke made against the French revolution was that it was wrong in both its practical and theoretical aspects. Burke argued that the revolution was based on abstract theorizing, which was a dangerous affair. But, unlike other scholars such as Louis Gabriel who were strong supporters of absolutism and orthodoxy, Burke proposed that change needed to be within a continuity environment, and as well provided a framework for achieving such kind of a change. In doing so, he stated clearly in his reflections that:

“…A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation. Without such means, it might even risk the loss of that part of the constitution which it wished the most religiously to preserve…” (Burke 2012:pp.56)

In supporting his arguments, Burke gave an example of England, which he claims had operated under the two principles of correction and conservation during the periods of Revolution and Restoration - when there was no King in place (Burke, 2012). Burke goes ahead to claim that in this time, England did not change the entire organization of the old order. But rather, they developed a corrective mechanism to rectify any faults that were available in their constitutional framework.

Hence, Burke argued that the French could have balanced the old and the new. He also criticized Jacobinism for what he termed an ‘attack’ to religion, institution of property, and the traditional constitutional arrangement. He argued that it was wrong to attack these entities because, in his opinion, they were the basic source of the country’s political wisdom (Burke, 2012). Nonetheless, it is important to note that Burke did not give his support to everything that had ancient characteristics, but rather, he was keen to embrace those that enhanced stability and order in the country. Consequently, his book: Reflections on The Revolution of France, was majorly targeted at the upper middle class and the aristocracy within British society, who, in his opinion, was the group that upheld order and stability.

Nonetheless, Burke’s criticism of the French revolution was also characterized by an illustration that the period of Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta was based on a slow but steady transition and consolidation that exemplified the idea of chance and continuity. To support his arguments, he explained that the slow but steady transition and consolidation that characterized those periods provided an opportunity for the British constitution to develop and enhance unity regardless of the diverse nature of the society (Burke, 2012). Hence, as Burke argued, there was a need for an inheritance for political purposes, without which, it would be impossible to achieve both transmission and conservation.

In Burke (2012), Burke made a comparison that whereas the British made a gradual change in its political landscape, the French revolution attempted to completely break out from the past, creating a fresh social and economic landscape that emphasized on participation and equality. Hence, Burke’s belief in natural aristocracy demystified the idea of creating a society of equals.

Last but not least, Burk argued in his book that the French Revolution did not uphold the basic tenets of a well-ordered state, where property and ability could be used as the major resources for ruling the nation. Whereas such an order could be largely characterized by inequality, Burke believed that a society characterised by wealthy families were better off in terms of stability. Hence, it emerges that Burk, in his favour for the aristocratic rule, did not support democratic or proportionate equality. Instead, he was quite in support of property preservation and protection.

Section B

Introduction

This section constitutes a commentary of the speech given by Thomas Babington given to the House of Commons on 18th April 1847. Thomas Babington was an English politician who was interested in writing historical and contemporary essays, as well as issuing reviews for such essays. It his interest in the English politics that motivated him to deliver a speech at the English House of Commons where he aired his views about the role of government in educating the public – as a means of delivering the people’s right to life and property protection. As will be illustrated hereafter, Babington’s main message was anchored on the social contract theory, a theory that has been a subject of criticism by several other historians and politicians such Edmund Burke.

The main focus of Babington’s speech is the government, and why it should undertake its responsibility of protecting the people and their property in the society. Nonetheless, Babington does not only ask the government to protect the people but also makes suggestions to the government regarding how it can protect the people. In doing so, he suggests that when people are ignorant, they are likely not to engage in activities that cause violence and destruction of property. Hence, according to him, education is the best remedy for insecurity.

A deeper evaluation of the speech reveals the speaker’s acknowledgment of Adam Smith’s beliefs that the government should have minimum interference with rich people’s education affairs. The speaker also acknowledges that despite Adams Smith strong opposition of government’s interference with the educational affairs of the rich, he also warned that in highly civilized societies, there should be a careful distinction between the education among the rich and education among the poor. Hence, the speaker makes reference to Adam Smith’s beliefs to make the point that when there is a lack of education among the poor, the society’s peace is threatened. Babington is agitating for the government’s role of delivering to the public, the basic right of education so as to protect the people and their property- as envisaged in the social contract theory.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Political Participation in Digital Age.

Ideally, the social contract theory holds that the government and the people entered in an agreement because life and the state of nature without laws and regulations would be intolerable. This agreement means that people have to respect each other for purposes of instilling peace and harmony among them. The people are responsible for obeying the authority and presenting parts or all their rights and freedoms to a higher authority. Ultimately, everyone has the right to protection of their lives, property and to some extent, their liberty. To achieve this, there was a need to develop an enforcement mechanism, where force could be used to maintain control.

This theory has been interpreted by various scholars including Edmund Burke, John Locke, and Thomas Hobbs. But, Burke took a critical perspective of the theory by stating that the social contract theory is a contradiction to the true basis for the state’s existence. To put this into perspective, believers in the social contract theory suggest that there is a voluntary relationship between the state and the individual, albeit the state is a compulsory association. Hence, they believe that does not take the nature of a commercial contract that seeks to fulfil private purposes and interests. They also believe that the social contract between governments and people is meant to achieve common and unending purposes. But, while criticizing the social contract theory, Burke asserted that:

“…The state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper or coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties…”

To further paraphrase Burke’s criticisms, he asserts that the social contract between the people and the government is a partnership in all perfection and virtue, especially because the partnership cannot end regardless of which generation it exists in. hence, it is a partnership that not only between the state and those who are currently alive, but also with those who are dead and those yet to be born.

In his speech, Babington brings to the attention of his audience, the idea that when the government delivers the right to education to the poor, insecurity shall have been solved. Besides, he says that ignorance is a major risk factor for immorality, and therefore the government should honour its social contract responsibility by delivering education to the poor – as a social right it owes to them. But Burke proposes several factors to bear in mind when delivering these rights (what he calls natural rights) to the poor. In doing so, he explains that there is no similarity between natural rights and popular power and that when the natural right is not delivered with justice, it no longer bears the characteristics of a right. This is because, according to Burke, justice can only be achieved in an environment of social utility. Hence, we draw from Burke’s argument the whereas Babington agitates for educating the poor as a means of reducing crime and protecting people’s property, it is necessary that the government should deliver this right in a manner that upholds justice and fairness, whereby everyone, the poor and the rich are treated as equals.

In conclusion, we draw on the ideas of the social contract theory to analyse Babington’s speech, where he suggested that in order to reduce crime and protect people’s property, the government should be committed to reducing ignorance among the masses by delivering education to them. The theory’s emphasis on the role of government in protecting the people is generative in understanding why Babington is suggesting that it is the responsibility of the government to reduce crime and enhance security by educating people and eliminating ignorance in them. However, to this end, we are cognisant of Burke’s criticism of the social contract theory and the way he insists that while delivering the people’s natural right to protection of life and property, the government must do so with strict adherence to justice and equality.

References

Burke, E. (2012). Reflections on the Revolution in France. Dover Publications.

Goodman, R. 2018, "The Deliberative Sublime: Edmund Burke on Disruptive Speech and Imaginative Judgment", The American Political Science Review, vol. 112, no. 2, pp. 267-279.

Masters, B. 2013, "Reconciling Originalism with the Father of Conservatism: How Edmund Burke Answers the Disruption Dilemma in N.L.R.B. v. Noel Canning", Brigham Young University Law Review, vol. 2013, no. 4, pp. 1061-1102.

Ralph, J., Holland, J. & Zhekova, K. 2017, "Before the vote: UK foreign policy discourse on Syria 2011-13", Review of International Studies, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 875-897.