Legitimate Reform
Can a government correct its abuses without destroying the authority that makes reform possible? The answer determines whether liberty rests on accountable institutions or on the unbounded will of a faction.
Burke defended reform that preserved inherited constitutional arrangements while correcting abuses, and he attacked the New Whigs for treating the French Revolution as a reliable model of liberty. In 1791, he tied political legitimacy to representation, accountability, property, and the duties institutions impose on those who exercise authority. That argument rejects both arbitrary sovereignty and unbounded popular power: reform may be necessary, but it must answer to precedent, political responsibility, and the limits of coercion.
- representation
- reform
- political legitimacy
- political responsibility
- precedent
- constitutionalism
- authority
- liberty
- property rights
- revolution
- monarchy
- political obligation
- popular sovereignty
- necessity
Enter a dialogue
- You defend yourself throughout as 'Mr. Burke', as though a stranger were weighing the case. What does speaking of yourself in the third person let you do?
- You say duty and will are contradictory terms, and our strongest obligations were never chosen. Why can't a majority simply dissolve the society it was born into?
- Whigs in 1710 called the Revolution of 1688 an emergency act, not a right to choose rulers. Why does that clear you of deserting Whig principles?
- Your 'natural aristocracy', formed by self-respect, leisure to reflect and the public's eye, is essential to any nation. Does such an upbringing fit people to lead?
- You raised the French Revolution in a debate on Canada, costing you Fox's friendship. Why do you say it was never part of the Whigs' founding principles?