EDMUND BURKE

Edmund Burke (1729-1797) is measured as the mainly significant conservative political thinker that England has produced, Conservatism as an significant political ideology began with him in the similar method as liberalism began with John Locke (1632-1704). Though there is close to unanimity in relation to the his brilliance there is no consensus in relation to the him in conditions of political categorization. Berlin described him as an ultra conservative while O' Brien viewed him as a liberal and pluralist opponent of the French Revolution. Laski described him a liberal because of his sympathetic attitude to the American Revolution and the Irish Question and his criticisms of the British colonial rule in India. Some saw him as a progressive conservative, for "he supported political and economic progress within the framework of England's recognized institutions". Kramnick described him as "the gravedigger of the Enlightenment" for his virulent anti-clericalism and disembodied rationalism.

Burke's thought is hard to categorize. First, he showed no clear preference for he had both liberal as well as conservative tendencies which became apparent in his support to the American Revolution and his opposition to the French Revolution. Second, Burke was a prolific writer in his extensive career as a parliamentarian and so mainly of his writings were situational and could not be measured as well formulated political theory texts. His mainly significant political tract appeared as a reaction to the French Revolution of 1789 proving that there exists a clear connection flanked by crisis and important growths in political theorizing. Though his fame rests mostly for his critique of the French Revolution there were other concerns in him as well.

Restraining Royal Power

In the custom of Whiggism, Burke was a vocal opponent of arbitrary monarchical power and patronage. Though, lie was also conscious of the importance of the institution of monarchy as a natural attraction for obedience and reverence and that it also strengthened the principle of stability. But these positive characteristics were minor, compared to its significant role in developing a mixed and balanced government, for which it had to be streamlined. In developing this theme the power of Richard Hooker (1554-1600), Locke and Charles-Louis de Secondat Montesquieu (1689-1755) were apparent. Burke was an admirer and defender of the British constitution, as he whispered that it adequately ensured good government, order and liberty of its people.

Ireland

Burke stood with the Irish cause, though expediency and the interests of a successful political career compelled him to sacrifice theoretical consistency. Furthermore, his open and public stand was careful, compared to his private correspondence. But in spite of this limitation, which was understandable because of the prevailing mood and consideration for his political survival, he always accentuated die desirability of the emancipation of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. He also spoke of the inevitability of the Irish emancipation.

East India Company

For in relation to the a decade, Burke spoke extensively against the oppression, use and misrule in India through the East India Company. "There is nothing more noble in Burke's career than his extensive effort to mitigate the evils of company rule in India". He criticized British rule in India. Being an old culture, much older than Britain, its traditions and customs were to be respected. Interestingly, Henry Suinner Maine (1 822-88) used these arguments to challenge John Austin's (1790-1859) theory of sovereignty. Burke's interest in Indian affairs sustained with his primary initiative in launching impeachment proceedings against Warren Hastings in 1787. He challenged Hastings' assertion that it was impossible to apply Western criteria of power and legality to oriental societies. The proceedings sustained for eight extensive years, though in the end, Hastings was acquitted.

American Colonies

Burke championed the cause of American colonies. In the midst of emotional and angry debates like the right of Parliament to tax colonies and the right of resistance to American settlers, he lifted the whole controversy to a dissimilar and a higher stage altogether. He refused to examine the problem from the point of view of abstract rights, and raised some extremely serious and fundamental questions, which were reiterated in the course of his critique of the French Revolution. Furthermore, he charged that the British policy was inconsistent, and accentuated the require for legislative cause.

CRITICISM OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

The French Revolution, at least in the initial era had lot of support in England. One popular protection was from Richard Price (1723-91). Burke's masterpiece appeared as a critique of Price. His scathing criticism surprised several, destroying several of his secure friendships. Equally shocking for several was the clear variation flanked by the young and the old Burke. Burke's earlier criticism of die king's manage in excess of the parliament, his efforts of more than a decade to expose oppression, use and misrule in India through the East India Company, and his championing the cause of the American colonies was at variance with his total denunciation of the French Revolution. Unlike several other contemporaries, he refused to draw any parallels flanked by the French events and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Burke's Reflections was written throughout the revolutionary years.

In Reflections, Burke made a detailed criticism of both the theoretical and practical characteristics of the Revolution. He pointed out the dangers of abstract theorizing, but was realistic enough to give for an alternative mode of social progression. Unlike Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) and Louis Gabriel de Bonald (1754-1840), who outrightly defended orthodoxy and absolutism, Burke provided a framework for change with stability. "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 mainly religiously to preserve". As Burke pointed out, these two principles of conservation and correction operated in England throughout the critical eras of the Restoration and the Revolution, when England did not have a king. But in both these critical times, a totally new one did not replace the whole edifice of the old order. Instead, a corrective mechanism was achieved to rectify the deficiencies with in the existing constitutional framework. As such, it balanced the old and the new.

Burke criticized Jacobinism for its wholesale attack on recognized religion, traditional constitutional arrangements and the institution of property, which he saw as the source of political wisdom in a country. He often used the term "prejudice", through which he meant attachment to recognized practices and institutions. These provided a bulwark against sweeping changes, particularly those that followed from a rational critique. He did not support everything that was ancient, only those that held society jointly through providing order and stability. His main audience in the Reflections was the aristocracy and the upper middle class of English society, which he perceived to be the upholders of stability and order. He challenged the English ruling class to respond appropriately to the plight of the French Queen, otherwise it would reflect the lack of chivalry and demonstrate that the British political order was not superior to that of the Continent.

Burke further argued that the era of the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights was one of slow but steady consolidation, reflecting stability and change. This enabled the British constitution to preserve and give unity within the context of diversity. Inheritance was cherished as a political necessity, for without it both conservation and transmission were not possible. While there was a procedure of gradual change in Britain the French made an effort to achieve a complete break with the past and make afresh with emphasis on equality and participation. With this inherent belief in natural aristocracy, he debunked the extremely effort to make a society of equals. Burke emphasized the necessity of well-ordered state, to be ruled through a combination of skill and property. Such an order would be inherently based on inequality. He connected the perpetuation of family property with stability of a society. There was no lay for either proportionate equality or democratic equality in his preference for aristocratic rule. Like Adam Smith (1723-90), he stressed the importance of preserving and protecting property. He favored accumulation of wealth, rights of inheritance and the require, to enfranchise property owners. While Burke was socially conservative, he was a liberal in economics, the two being fused jointly uneasily.

CRITIQUE OF NATURAL RIGHTS AND SOCIAL CONTRACT

Burke pointed out the intricacies of human nature and the complexities of society, and because of such thoughts no easy analysis pf human nature or power was possible. Rejecting any claim of either economic or political equality, he provided a theory of rights within this big framework of his political philosophy. He accentuated partnership, but denied any corresponding equal rights in the enjoyment of economic and political privileges. In understanding and perpetuating this philosophy, the British constitution had stood the test of time. Emphasizing the utmost require for stability, Burke pointed out that in the regions of morality, principles of government and thoughts of liberty, there was no require to create a fresh beginning every time. Giving the instance of the English attainment, he pointed out the inevitability of a continuous procedure of adaptability and change within the superior structure. Rejecting atheism and pointing out the enormous importance of religion for a proper functioning of civil society, he characterized the individual as a religious animal. He saw no disagreement flanked by the subsistence of an recognized church, an recognized monarchy, an recognized aristocracy and an recognized limited democracy. The point that Burke made was that in the contemporary age the coexistence of institutions was of utmost importance for effective functioning and efficiency. He stressed the information that all power was to be exercised as a trust, arid in this his philosophy was akin to that of Locke, but he accentuated that the stability of society had to be preserved at any cost. The overall structure of society could not be presently reduced to a mere contract flanked by two or more parties. It was not a trade agreement involving paper, coffee, calico or tobacco. Such agreements reflected only transient interests, which could be dissolved through the parties involved. The intricacies of social relationships had to be understood on a extremely dissimilar plane.

...It is a partnership in all science, a partnership in all art, a partnership in every virtue and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in several generations, it becomes a partnership not only flanked by those who are livelihood, but flanked by those who are livelihood, those who are dead and those who are to be born. Each contract of a scrupulous state is but a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal natures, connecting the visible and invisible world, just as to a fixed compact sanctioned through the inviolable oath which holds all physical and all moral natures, each in their appointed lay.

Beside with the rejection of the contract, Burke rejected the other Lockeian fundamentals— natural law, the rights of the individual and the separation of Church and the state. The only laws that he recognized were the laws of God and the laws of a civilized society. Burke did not reject the argument of human rights, except that he sought to rescue the real rights from the imagined ones. He shared with Locke the view that political philosophy was based on theological foundations but rejected the derivative of political and juridical equality from die argument that God- created all human beings as equal. He also rejected the thought of creating order with the help of human cause. He charged the doctrine of natural rights with 'metaphysical abstraction', It failed to take into explanation the differences that lived flanked by societies. Following Montesquieu, he insisted that dissimilar countries merited dissimilar legal and political systems, keeping in view the differences pertaining to climate, geography and history. The universality of natural rights doctrine overlooked national, geographical and cultural distinctions.

Though his criticism of natural rights seemed similar to that of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), there were important differences. Burke's conception of human well being was not hedonistic as in die case of Bentham. In information, it was more like Aristotle's (384-22 BC) thought of eudaimonia\linking moral virtue and duty with that of political morality and duty. Furthermore, Burke suggested maximization, but through stressing the moral to the mathematical he was closer to Aristotle's 'phi-onesis'. He also rejected the utilitarian thought of trade-offs. Unlike Bentham, Burke was also careful in relation to the endless new schemes. Besides emphasizing political virtue, Burke also stressed the require for an elite, which enjoyed a privileged location because of its contribution to the general good. He placed aristocracy under this category. In parliament, this elite could be distinguished from others with reference to ownership of property, for inheritance was a sure cause for conservation. In this context, the French National Assembly did not consist of property owners. Instead they were lawyers who were "artful men, talented, aggressive, ideologically inclined, impractical and dangerous, if not alienated". The vital problem was that' the talent that made a good lawyer was not enough to create a good ruler and be a part of the natural aristocracy. The vital shortcoming of a lawyer was that his experience had a extremely narrow base, which meant that both the diversity of humankind and complexities of public were beyond his grasp.

LIMITS OF CAUSE

Burke questioned the extremely vital argument that a stable political structure could be recognized only on the foundation of cause. He pointed to the limits of cause and its role in understanding society. In information, Burke questioned the whole approach of rationalistic thought, an argument reiterated through Michael Oakeshott (1901-90). Quoting Aristotle, he cautioned against a priori deductive reasoning in moral arguments. The philosophy of the French Revolutionaries was a 'false philosophy', because of its insistence that all power derived its sustenance from cause. As opposed to cause, Burke accentuated wisdom as something more than prejudice. The philosophy of natural rights based on the new principles of liberty and equality was not conducive to the establishment of order. Veneration of power urbanized in excess of a era of time, and the denunciation of one power through a dissimilar group led to its denunciation as well. The abstract ideology inevitably led from subversion to anarchy, because it brought a consciousness of rights but not of duties of order, discipline and obedience to power. Burke repeatedly stressed that societies needed awe, superstition, ritual and honor for their stability, and to be able to secure the loyalty and support of those on whom it depended. He warned that a state, which dismissed this whole edifice aside in the name of rational enlightenment, would ultimately be a state based merely on a lust for power.

Burke accentuated that the dignity of the human being came through socialization. One rendered obedience to society not because it benefited us, or because we had promised to obey it, but because we saw ourselves as an integral part of it. Though he rejected the divine right of kings, he affirmed, like Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC), that nothing was more pleasing to God than the subsistence of human 'civitates'. He accused the natural rights theorists of not merely "imprudence and intellectual arrogance but of blasphemy and impiety as well".

CITIZENSHIP AND DEMOCRACY

Burke was also perturbed through the democratic aspirations of the French revolution, in scrupulous through the doctrines of popular sovereignty and common will. He regarded democracy as the "mainly shameless thing in the world". Me was skeptical of the political skill of the ordinary people, He was an elitist, totally unconcerned in relation to the plight of the masses. For him, the best form of political practice was one that was played through a few of the enlightened and aristocratic elite. Burke whispered that elections gave an opportunity for the enfranchised citizens to choose a wise elite to govern them. In a customized form, Schumpeter provided a similar model of elitist theory of democracy in. the 1940s. Like Aristotle, Burke favored citizenship limited to a segment of adults who had the leisure for discussion and information, and were not mentally dependent. The Whigs in England and America favored ownership of property as a necessary condition for citizenship. In view of the information that average individuals were guided through their baser instincts, government had to stay them apathetic so as to prevent their selfishness from undermining communal life.

Burke accepted inequalities as natural and unavoidable in any society, and that some would enjoy an enhanced status. In the well-ordered society, this ruling elite was a genuine one, a 'natural aristocracy', for the mass of people were incapable of governing themselves. They could not think or act without guidance and direction. For Burke, government was not based on common will, but wisdom. For Burke, political representation "is the representation of interests and interest has an objective, impersonal and unattached reality". For Burke, aristocracy of virtue and wisdom should govern for the good of a nation. As in other regions, even in representation, there was no clear and well laid out theory of representation. But out of Burke's speeches and writings appeared some key thoughts. He regarded the members of parliament as an elite group, a group of natural aristocracy. The mass of ordinary people needed the guidance and direction from this elite since they could not govern through themselves. Representatives were genuinely superior to the electorate. The representatives had to possess the capability for rational decision creation . They were to be men of practical wisdom. This was a negation of Jean Jacques Rousseau's (1712-78) theory of direct democracy. The representatives require not consult or be bound through the views of the voters. Furthermore, obligation and ethical thoughts, and questions of right and wrong guided governmental action. Burke championed rational parliamentary discussion, which provided the right answers to political questions. And as a participant, the representative require not consult the voters. They would enjoy complete freedom, for they have no interest other than the national interest. With contempt for the average voter, Burke advocated restricted suffrage so that the selection procedure of the natural aristocratic group of parliament would become fool proof. He also distinguished flanked by actual representation and virtual representation. Since an region would have one dominant interest, he saw the merit of virtual representation against actual representation. Virtual representation was based on general interest. Through this logic, even people who did not vote were represented. The localities, which did not have actual representation through this criterion, would have virtual representation. Burke was careful in noting that this logic of virtual representation did not hold for the disenfranchised Catholics of Ireland and the people of the American colonies. Pitlcin rightly pointed out that Burke's location was highly inconsistent. His view of representation endorsed the 17th Century notion of representation, and had extremely little relevance in modern times. Though, it helps us to understand the anti-democratic bias prevalent throughout Burke's era. The Burkean theory centered on the parliament. Conniff tried to refute Pitkin's analysis through questioning the theory of objective interest and a commonly held agreement of the parliamentary elite on what constituted the general good. Though, Burke's insistence that every recognizable constituency had one dominant interest and that a consensus could always emerge out of parliamentary discussion vindicated Pitkin.

RELIGION AND TOLERATION

Burke's views on religion exhibited both liberal and conservative perceptions. He defended traditional practices of the recognized church, unless there was an 'intolerable abuse'. He equated attack on the recognized Church of England as tantamount to an attack on England's constitutional order. He was influenced that the recognized church would foster peace and dissuade civil discord. His liberal temperament made him advocate and defend toleration for mainly religious sects, including non-Christians. He was perturbed that the Protestants did not support toleration for the Catholics. He did not consider in the truth of any scrupulous religion but was concerned in relation to the effect of changes in traditional religious practice on political stability. Toleration and religious freedom could be refused if it threatened civil peace and measured atheism as complementary to political radicalism. He was condescending towards Rational Dissenters as being better than atheists, for at least they whispered in God, though not in the divinity of Christ. Though, he castigated all those who corrupted and attacked religion as being destructive of all power, thereby undermining equity, justice, and order—the foundations of human society.

Burke did not quarrel with the atheists as extensive as they did nothing to publicly attack or subvert religion. While he began to dislike Hume for his open contempt of religion, he remained friendly with the irreligious Smith, even though the latter blamed Roman Catholicism for impeding economic and political progress, but there was no denunciation or revolt against religion. Burke's critique of the French Revolution was also due to the latter's anti-clericalism. The well-known cry "hang the bishops from the lampposts" throughout the early days of the Revolution was an indication of the "insolent irreligious in opinions and practices". The nationalization of the Church's property through the National Assembly in 1790 was a move against traditional religion, and represented the superior goal of subverting establishing power and civil society. The revolutionary fervor only fostered hatred, animosity and suspicion, rather than affection and trust. It undermined the traditional civilizing ties of the French citizens. Burke "placed a great deal of emphasis on manners and etiquette that controlled passions and will.

CRITICISMS OF BURKE

Thomas Paine (1737-1809) criticized Burke's location in his Rights of Man (1791). In his reply, he defended Enlightenment liberalism and tried to correct "the flagrant misrepresentations which Mr. Burke's pamphlet contains". Both agreed that in modern European society there lived a extremely big proportion of illiterate and unenlightened people. Burke, following Aristotle, argued that individuals differed in their capacities, which is why any effort to stage would never succeed. Paine, on the contrary, attributed the extremely big numbers of illiterate people in the 'old' world to bad governments. In total contrast to Burke, he championed the cause of universal suffrage, representative government, the rule of law, and a sympathetic attitude to the poor. He denounced the hereditary system, whether in the name of monarchy or aristocracy, for a "hereditary governor is as ridiculous as an hereditary author". Unlike Burke, Paine, following Locke, justified government as an outcome of a social contract flanked by the people themselves. Lie was critical of the British constitution for being unwritten, creation it unhelpful as a reference point. Its precedents were all arbitrary contrary to cause and general sense.

Burke and Paine were representative symbols of the conservative and radical responses to the French Revolution. It was noteworthy that both of them championed the American cause, but were on opposite sides with regard to the French experiment. Their vital disagreements could be understood in light of their support to the American cause. For Burke, "Taxation without representation" violated traditional English rights and liberties and that the English were on the wrong face of history, because they violated their own well-recognized practices. For demanding redressal, die Americans did not base their arguments, like the French did, on a notion of natural rights. Paine, on the other hand, establish that the British action in America was a violation of universal cause and natural rights. He rejected hierarchical power, and asserted that "setting up and putting down kings and governments is the natural right of citizens". He regarded aristocrats as a class of unproductive idlers and parasites, who existed off the surplus and the use of the industrious classes. As such, in a rational, reconstructed society they would not be missed at all. The striking parallel flanked by a radical Paine, a liberal John Stuart Mill (1806-73) and a socialist Claude Henri Comte de Rouvroy Saint Simon (17601825) is too clear to be missed.

Early Liberal Feminists like Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-97) and Catherine Macaulay Sawbridge (1 731-91) criticised Burke and regarded the French Revolution as something new and unique, spreading the message of an enlightened spirit. Wollstonecraft echoing several contemporaries of her time, in her reply to Burke, pointed out the apparent contradictions of a liberal Burke supporting the American cause, and the conservative Burke opposing Jacobinism. His praise of hereditary rights and custom and his emphatic stress on the conservation of existing political dealings indicated a lack of cause and a predominance of sentiment, leading to social stagnation, hindering the progressive and dynamic nature of socio-political life. She accused him of championing the maintenance of unequal property, and if necessary, of despotism and tyranny, for property not only restricted liberty through creating inequalities, but also undermined sociability. In the middle of unequals just as to Wollstonecraft there could be no friendship and mutual respect.

Wollstonecraft, unlike Burke saw the Church as fundamentally corrupt, having, secured vast property from the poor and the ignorant. With the help of David Hume's (1711-76) History d England (1754-62), she tried to illustrate that English laws were product of contingencies rather than the wisdom of the ages. She insisted that only those institutions, which could withstand the scrutiny of cause and were in accordance with natural rights and God's justice, deserved respect and obedience. Furthermore, she assailed Burke for defending a 'gothic affability' more appropriate for a feudal age, than the burgeoning commercial age marked for its 'liberal civility'. Rejecting Burke's theory of prescriptive rights, Wollstonecraft contended that human beings through birth were rational creatures with sure inherited rights, especially equal rights to liberty compatible with that of others. She criticized Burke's views on women as a "symbol of man's require for a feminine ideal, not woman for herself'. Wollstonecraft, like Paine, portrayed Burke as a brilliant but misguided voice of the past. Though Paine's criticism of Burke was more effective and well-recognized, as apparent from his well-known phrase that Burke "pitted the plumage but forgot the dying bird", it was Wollstonecraft who advocated a more radical stance than Paine for ameliorating the plight of the poor. Paine did not have any plan for social leveling other than taxing the rich and insisting that the appalling circumstances of the poor necessity be improved, but he failed to offer any economic solution to the problem. On the other hand, Wollstonecraft suggested the adoption of economic means for improving the condition of the poor through dividing estates into small farms and endorsed plans for the working class, which could lead to their betterment. Wollstonecraft was the first to lay stress on the equal rights and status for women through pointing to the incompleteness of the natural rights doctrine, which understood the individual, to be a male and left out the female.

Another refutation came from James Mackintosh's Vindiciae Gallicae in 1791. In it he insisted that Burke had trampled upon the ideals of Whiggism and aligned himself instead with Tory superstition and chivalry. In opposition to Paine, Mackintosh invoked the ideals of 1688 in explaining the events in France. He supported the Revolution, for it attempted to create France a commercial society.