Burke

toc =Background= (Include background about the author necessary to understanding his or her positions, such as, e.g. a short biographical summary, information about the period in which he or she lived, etc., with links to relevant sources. Do not cut and paste from other websites)

=Readings=

Online texts

 * [|Letters on a Regicide Peace], [|Letter 1], Online Library of Liberty.

Overview
Burke supported the policy of intervention not on the grounds of a threat to Britain from France but from fear of Jacobinism, i.e., “the egalitarian, antimonarchical ideology of the French revolution” (Brown //et al.//, p. 253). The fear for Burke was that if the French revolutionaries succeeded in abolishing property rights and the rights of the monarch, it would be contagious. England and, more so European civilisation, could thus be threatened by revolution (Brown //et al.//, pp.253 & 292). Burke therefore considered that Britain needed to defeat the French as a signal to its own people that revolution is futile (ibid., p. 253.). Burke saw revolution as the destruction of civilised morality (ibid., p. 254).

Burke perceived Europe not only as a system of states but also as a commonwealth based on common beliefs and practices (Brown //et al.//, p. 254). He saw international cooperation as resting not only on formal treaties but also on cultural and customary commonalities (ibid.). Moreover, violation of the “law of society” or “civil vicinity”—basic principles of European society whereby offensive innovations are proscribed—are grounds for intervention by force (ibid.).

Summary
Burke asserts that commonwealths (states) are artificial entities arbitrarily produced by the human mind (in Brown //et al.//, p. 293). Moreover, there is no theory yet which can explain “the internal causes which necessarily affect the fortune of the state” and the causes are much less certain “than the foreign causes that tend to raise, to depress, and sometimes to overwhelm a community” (ibid.).

Burke laments and is highly critical of what he sees as the backward step in terms of a civilised state taken by France following the revolution and, consequently, its deviation from the rest of Europe (the “violent breach of the community of Europe” (in Brown //et al.//, p. 298)): “Instead of the religion and the law by which they were in a great politic communion with the Christian world, they have constructed their republic on three bases, all fundamentally opposite to those on which the communities of Europe are built. Its foundation is laid in regicide [i.e., antimonarchism], in Jacobinism [i.e., overturning or violation of property rights], and in atheism [i.e., the ignoring of God as the moral ruler of the world]; and it has joined to those principles a body of systematic manners which secures their operation” (ibid, pp. 293-296).

Burke contends that in international relations (“intercourse between nations”) too much emphasis and trust is placed upon the “formality of treaties and compacts” (in Brown //et al.//, p. 296). Burke is sceptical about the reliance that can be expected from treaties and agreements between nations. He believes that nothing bonds nations together as much as “correspondence in laws, customs, manners, and habits of life” (ibid.). He highlights this viewpoint when he states that there “have been periods of time in which communities, apparently in peace with each other, have been more perfectly separated than, in latter times, many nations in Europe [having similarity in religion, laws, and manners] have been in the course of long and bloody wars” (ibid., p. 297).

Burke views war as “the sole means of justice amongst nations”, even if it is also “the means of wrong and violence”, and as inevitable (in Brown //et al.//, p. 296).

Burke sees the French revolution as producing ramifications for other states: “Men are never in a state of //total// independence of each other. It is not the condition of our nature: nor is it conceivable how any man can pursue a considerable course of action without its having some effect on others” (in Brown //et al.//, p. 298) (italics in the original). In this regard Burke refers to the Law of Neighbourhood (or “civil vicinity” (ibid., p. 299)) “which does not leave a man perfectly master on his own ground” (ibid., p. 298). States have a duty to one another with respect to the effect their actions might have on each other, just as individuals do, and where that duty is not fulfilled, war is permissible so long as it is waged on the basis of due “moral prudence” (ibid., pp. 299-300).

=Study Questions= He sees European nations as forming a community (commonwealth) because of the likeness of their religion, laws, and manners.
 * Does Burke think European nations form merely an international "system" or a full-blown international community?

Burke believes that European nations form a "full-blown international community" because of the cultural ties that exist between the people of European nations. He believes that it is this shared culture (as opposed to laws or treaties) which links humans. Europe in this way is virtually one great state.

Burke argues that the the revolutionaries in France have constructed the republic founded on concepts that go against the ideals that the rest of Europe is built on. Burke sees the French revolution as being based on regicide, Jacobism and atheism. He is concerned that the French revolution sets a bad example to England and that, consequently, England itself is threatened by revolution. That is, according to Burke, the French revolution is a danger to England and England therefore has a right and duty to wage war against France to eliminate this danger.
 * Why does Burke think intervention against France is justified?

It is dangerous because innovation is contagious and threatens the common moral fibre, religion, laws, customs, etc. upon which the nations of Europe are founded. It appears that Burke sees distance as not a factor in the danger posed by innovation. Put differently, the //Law of Neighbourhood// applies regardless of where nations that are common in their religion, laws, and manners are situated. Presumably Burke would not see innovation amongst barbarians as posing any danger to Europe.

Burke was not opposed to gradual change, but feared change through revolution because revolution throws the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. He thought governmental institutions that had stood and operated for generations had inherited wisdom that should not be thrown away lightly. He believed that if an institution had stood the test of time, there must be some rationale behind it that, even if undiscovered by the present generation, would soon be discovered unless that institution was destroyed through revolution. Change should be gradual in response to changing social conditions. Burke believed that the underlying worth of these (monarchical) institutions would in fact be preserved by change. If they changed in nature gradually, reflecting the social structure and needs of different generations while remaining intact, there would be no need for revolutionary change that would destroy these institutions and result in the loss of their inherited wisdom.

Burke is right to espouse the virtues of gradual, considered change. Examining rapid or revolutionary movements in history reveals that most of them have a common thread of human suffering, violence and chaos. The 'great' revolutions of history have generally been marked with mass bloodshed and terror, which Burke was seeking to avoid. Examples include the French and Russian revolutions, the partition of India etc. However, some social institutions are both so powerful and unjust that it is difficult to advocate gradualism in their abolition. Good examples of fast change working relatively peacefully and to the overall benefit of society are the so called 'Velvet' revolutions of Eastern Europe that successfully applied huge popular protest movements to secure democracy. Perhaps, as a general rule, Burke's perference towards incremental change is a useful mindset, but not applicable to every situation. =External Resources= (Add links to useful external resources)
 * Is Burke right about the need for gradual rather than fast change? Do social institutions always hold some wisdom?