The Origins of Autocracy

pay no attention to pedigree (since there is no boyardom among them), but say that they look for skill, intelligence, and valor. However, this is not really so, and frequently their prominent men are people of no merit, though skillful at flat­tery. Thus with one wave of the hand, the lowest become the highest, and the highest the lowest. This deprives people of any courage and begets a sense of worthlessness and despair. For no one can be sure of his position, wealth, or the safety of his life, and no one has reason to work hard for the sake of high honor or glory (Politika, p. 348).

"The European kings act better, in that along with other good qualities they also look for noble birth," he notes in contrast.

After all, men of noble birth, who from ancient times have possessed a glorious name and broad estates, take more care to preserve the kingdom and their estate in an honourable condition, and more care of the ancient name of their clan. . . . Furthermore, the boyars in their youth have more time to learn the sciences than do plain people (ibid.).

But along with Turkey, Krizhanich had in mind another sad example: Poland, where it was precisely the privilege of the aristocracy which had led to chaos and anar- the people occupying the highest places in the state, then all is lost."[23]And fear as the principle of a system requires, according to Montes­quieu, the extreme limitation of the number of political ideas in cir­culation at any given moment. "Everything must turn on two or three ideas, and no new ones at all are needed. When training an animal, one must be very careful of changing the trainer or the method of instruction: one must hit its brain with two or three movements, no more.'"¹

Thus, according to Montesquieu, the negation of ideological limita­tions on power through the minimization and standardization of ideas is an attribute of despotism, which deprives the administration of feedback from the system, excludes any mechanism for correcting mistakes, and consequently makes the personal power of the despot extremely unstable. Of course, Montesquieu describes this in other terms. He says that the despotic principle does not permit either judgment, objections, or independent opinions on the part of execu­tives, and is therefore more subject than other systems to "corrup­tion." Furthermore, it is "corrupted constantly, since it is corrupt by its nature."

What Montesquieu did not articulate with sufficient clarity is the connection between the negation of economic and ideological limita­tions. But, after all, despotism needs the minimization of ideas pre­cisely for this, so that the thought of the possibility of challenging the constant plundering of the economy cannot even arise. This is why it is compelled to take under its control not only the material, but also the intellectual product of the country. Administering not only peo­ple but ideas as well, it must rob the heads of its subjects with as much care as it robs their coffers. Thus, intellectual robbery turns out to be only the reverse side of material robbery. A regime which denies eco­nomic limitations cannot help denying ideological ones.