ORIENTAL DESPOTISM
1. Context
A look at the evolution of the concept of Oriental despotism, influenced by the Eurocentric perspectives of various thinkers across centuries; this idea was further shaped by medieval and Enlightenment thinkers
2. About Oriental Despotism
- The idea of Oriental despotism, enriched by the contributions of philosophers, political theorists, travellers, administrators, and diplomats, is deeply embedded in European culture, and heavily influenced by travel literature.
- Its origins can be traced to Greek thought, where terms like "despot" and "despotism" were employed to assert Greek identity and superiority over "barbaric" nations, especially the Persians. Greek philosophers often differentiated between Greeks and Persians, portraying the latter as subjugated slaves, in contrast to the freedom-loving Greeks.
- Aristotle elaborated on this concept in his work Politics, offering a more structured theoretical basis.
- He viewed despotism as a legitimate, hereditary form of monarchy, particularly fitting for societies considered more barbarous, such as Persia, where the monarch exercised absolute power due to the people's tendency towards subordination.
- This form of governance, however, was distinct from tyranny, which Aristotle deemed illegitimate and against the will of the subjects
3. Various interpretations of the concept
- The Eurocentric perspective's limited understanding of Asiatic societies, particularly the Persians, led to misconceptions and various interpretations of Oriental despotism. These preconceived ideas about the Persians persisted through the Byzantine Empire and into medieval European thought.
- Medieval authors and theorists, influenced by Aristotle’s classification of governments, used Oriental societies as examples of tyrannical rule to justify their own political struggles. These works reinforced the notion of Oriental otherness, creating a distinction between the so-called superior European societies and the inferior Asiatic ones.
- By the 16th century, new interpretations emerged. For example, Florentine philosopher and diplomat Niccolò Machiavelli used the concept to differentiate between states governed by citizens (republics) and those governed by a single ruler (principalities). The Ottoman Empire, with its centralized monarchical government, became a new example of despotic rule, in contrast to the decentralized European monarchies.
- French philosopher Jean Bodin further elaborated on the concept. He described a political system, which he called "monarchie seigneuriale," where the prince wielded unlimited authority over his subjects, akin to the relationship between master and slave.
- This was contrasted with "monarchie royale," where the king’s power was limited by property rights and fundamental, divine, and natural laws. Bodin believed that monarchie seigneuriale, with no private property rights, was the most ancient form of monarchy, distinct from tyranny, which was unstable and illegitimate.
- By the late 17th and early 18th centuries, travellers' accounts of Persian monarchies influenced the understanding of Oriental despotism. French physician François Bernier criticized the despotic government of the Mughal Empire he visited, noting the stark wealth disparity between rich princes and poor subjects, which he attributed to the lack of private ownership rights.
- French jeweller and traveller Jean Chardin described the despotism of the Persian Safavid monarchy as a result of historical and political factors rather than the natural character of the people or Islam. This perspective challenged the uniform interpretation of Asiatic governments and highlighted the importance of empirical experience in understanding political systems
4. Oriental despotism and Enlightenment
- During the Age of Enlightenment, theorists from countries like France criticized the authoritarian monarchy within their own nation, often drawing parallels between Louis XIV’s rule and that of Eastern despots.
- French philosopher Montesquieu analyzed despotism as a distinct form of government, separate from the Aristotelian monarchy, characterized by concentrated authority and the use of intimidation.
- He argued that the vast plains and political landscape of Asia, in contrast to Europe’s fragmented geography, contributed to the emergence of despotism. Montesquieu also explored the relationships between climate, religion, manners, economy, and laws, providing an empirical basis for understanding despotism.
- Many theories of the time, like Montesquieu’s, linked despotism to theocracy. However, some critics, such as French writer Voltaire, pointed out the limitations in Montesquieu’s understanding, noting that his arguments did not apply universally, as in the case of Turkey. Other Orientalists argued against the notion of absolute authority in Asia, citing examples of princely states in India.
- In contrast, some theorists, especially from the Physiocratic school, admired and promoted centralized systems like those in China, which effectively managed economic and social laws. These perspectives emphasized efficiency and presented a more positive view of despotism.
- With the extensive colonization of Asia by Europe, increased interactions between colonizers and local populations led to diverse perspectives on governance in Asian countries. Detailed accounts from diplomats and administrative staff aimed at ensuring smooth authority contributed to a more nuanced understanding of the East
5. Role in the Asiatic mode of production
- The concept of Oriental despotism took a new direction with German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who used it to analyze the Asiatic mode of production. He viewed it as the earliest stage of historical development, where individual autonomy was limited and the universal spirit was embodied in a single free person—the despot. Influenced by Hegel, German philosopher and socialist Karl Marx sought to understand the rationale behind such a system centered on a single ruler.
- Marx argued that despotism persisted due to the absence of individual property rights in the Asiatic mode of production, where the sovereign owned all the land. He believed that the geography of Asiatic countries reinforced their political systems, necessitating strong and centralized authority to manage essential agricultural irrigation systems. Marx asserted that European colonialism was necessary to modernize and Westernize the stagnant production systems in these societies.
- German sociologist Max Weber later expanded on the concept to explain differences between Mediterranean and Asiatic societies. He considered economic and geographical factors, arguing that the agrarian needs in Asian countries led to a more centralized system of power, concentrated on the ruler, while Mediterranean societies became more secular and capitalistic.
- By the 20th century, theorists like Karl August Wittfogel revisited the concept, extending the argument about despotic rule in Asian irrigation-based societies to criticize modern communist regimes as a new form of despotism. He claimed these regimes had similar features, such as the lack of private property rights and the government’s absolute control over society.
- The concept of Oriental despotism evolved from its origins in Greek thought, through medieval adaptations and Enlightenment ideas, to explain power in agrarian societies across Asia. Although its theoretical relevance declined with the rise of post-colonial theories and global historical perspectives, its influence on European culture remains significant, shaping the modern European mind and its sense of civic identity and responsibility
6. Way Forward
Contemporary analyses show how the stereotype of arbitrary Oriental power created a sense of otherness in European colonial and imperial ideologies, influencing how they ruled the colonised nations, especially in Asia. The persistent influence of Oriental despotism on European culture is seen in the complex interaction between ideas, experiences, historical views, and political attitudes toward Asian countries.
Source: The Hindu
