Napoleon vs Leviathan / Metternich vs Kakhovsky / Hobbes vs Locke

The Congress of Vienna in 1815 was a conglomeration of different diplomats and important people from different European countries. Part of the reasons for its success is that it unconsciously functions on the Enlightenment ideals of liberty and egalitarianism because the diplomacy is mostly about most of Europe trying to decide on how to restore the countries to their former boundaries and to give them to their "rightful" rulers i.e. giving property back to all than having them under a monolithic France. It's not a crazy idea to think that this meeting between the allied powers is democratic in nature, because the success of the congress is described by Metternich, "not on my part, nor on that of Austria, but from society at large..." But at the same time, it was also a triumph for anti-liberal, anti-democratic Austrian policy, and also, because of British and French disagreement, it was a demonstration of the decline of the congress system.

The congress proclaimed its hostility towards revolutionary regimes, the agreement to abolish the Neapolitan constitution, and authorized the Austrian army to restore its absolutist monarchy. The British & French protested against the decision, and therefore encouraged resistance among the Neapolitans. If applied in practice, the benefits that it provides would be maintaining tradition and the royal family in Austria, but in terms of benefits for non-aristocrats Austria would be behind in terms of the times. People seem to be already clamoring for reform and as revealed in the text document "The Decembrist Insurrection in Russia" men's hearts are stirred by the word Liberty. Metternich writes,

"By ruling, it really ameliorates the situation, but let authority remove nothing from the foundations on which it rests; let it act, but not concede. It should exercise its rights, but not discuss them. It should be just (and to be so it must be strong), and should respect all rights as it would have its own respected."

This reveals that the Austria's belief that true government and order only comes from authority imposing its power. When it comes to discussing ideals and rights, the Austrian monarchists believe that they exist but aren't worth discussing like the French philosophes like Rousseau and Voltaire did which led to the Revolution.

When it comes to Liberty, Metternich believes that it isn't a real concept but only language used as a tool to subdue the masses,

"It has not been slow in descending from the intellectual sphere into that of material facts. One word was sufficient to gain public favor. That word was Constitution, of all words the least precise, the most open to variety of interpretation, and the easiest to make popular, for it acts on the mass of the people through their hopes. Tell men that by means of a single word you will ensure them their rights, a liberty which the mass always confound with license, a career for their ambition, and success in all their enterprises, and you will have no trouble in making them listen to you. The mass once agitated, they give up everything: they listen, but do not care to comprehend. When the people do really comprehend, they are the first to re-establish order."

Metternich and the counter-revolutionaries believe that revolutionaries are simply people who want to gain power, but they don't understand what they want after they get power. They don't believe in the idea of liberty, because they are probably influenced by Hobbes' idea that only Order can bring cohesion and happiness to what they would otherwise believe the natural state which is chaotic, nasty, brutish, and short.

Metternich detects innovation as a target for criticism. Metternich sees revolutionary ideas as inherently nihilistic, because they believe that it targets all forms of legal systems. Metternich writes,

"The clear and precise aim of the factious is one and uniform. It is the overthrow of everything legally existing."

The Congress of Vienna, watercolour etching by August Friedrich Andreas Campe, in the collection of the State Borodino War and History Museum, Moscow.

Metternich believes that the purpose of government is to impose its power, because it has the right to do so, and Metternich probably believes in the divine right of rule considering he supports monarchy. Metternich writes,

"The principle which the monarchs must oppose to this plan of universal destruction is the preservation of everything legally existing. The only way to arrive at this end is by allowing no innovations."

As a result, it allowed for the Austrians to quell down a revolt in Piedmont at Novara on April 8, 1821. By imposing its power, it allowed order and legality to exist because Metternich believes that revolutionary ideas are inherently destructive.

Kakhovsky denies broad membership in his secret society only out of necessity. Perhaps the function of his secret society is by a number of calculated actions and planning that is different to the chaotic Revolution in France, and maybe Kakhovsky is preventing a similar thing happening in Russia because he doesn't want to cause destruction. Kavkovsky writes,

"His Majesty is making a great effort to discover all the members of the secret Society. But the government will not derive any notable benefit from that. We were not trained within the Society but were already ready to work when we joined it. The origin and the root of the Society one must seek in the spirit of the time and in our state of mind. I know a few belonging to the secret Society but am inclined to think the membership is not very large. Among my many acquaintances who do not adhere to the secret societies very few are opposed to my opinions. Frankly I state that among thousands of young men there are hardly a hundred who do not passionately long for freedom."

Kakhovsky believes that people already inherently carry the spirit of liberty and revolutionary ideas when Napoleon swept across Europe and made contact with Russia. His spirit was so compelling that people have already adopted his beliefs, and so Kakvhosky has faith in the Russian people in so far as that they don't need political membership to confirm their revolutionary decree.

Kakhovsky is also possibly making a claim about the absurdity of exclusivity. If a select group of party leaders is preaching about freedom and liberty to people, & then later use to this support to monopolize power then they aren't any different from the monarchists of the Congress of Vienna who all made many promises about upholding the greater good. Kakhovsky writes this statement,

"The Monarchs united into a Holy Alliance; congresses sprang into existence, informing the nations that they were assembled to reconcile all classes and introduce political freedom. But the aim of these congresses was soon revealed; the nations learned how greatly they had been deceived. The Monarchs thought only of how to retain their unlimited power, to support their shattered thrones, and to extinguish the last spark of freedom and enlightenment."

With that in mind, it's said that it's too late for the monarchs to regain their power that comes from the divine right of rule because the people have made up their mind and developed their consciousness, and have decided that they want what Napoleon was selling to them no matter how much the monarchs want to change their minds otherwise. They formed a "holy alliance" of people of all classes, to put down what they, Prussia, Austria, Great Britain, and Russia, all believed to be a common enemy, and they did this by assembling numerous reforms (Prussia introduced the Landwehr conscriptions with the idea of promotion only coming out of merit and not by birth, and in Great Britain there are sympathizers like Wollstonecraft who seek revolutionary ideas such as universal suffrage) and what they got in the end was the complete opposite of what they were trying to keep in the first place, because the monarchs only have support & power when they attempted a compromise with their people. By destroying that promise they essentially betrayed their people, and the existence of secret societies and the tsunami of liberal uprisings can only confirm that Locke was correct that the purpose of government is to appease its people and not the other way around.

Kakhovsky portrays the Vienna settlement as hypocritical and self-defeating because the monarchs promises power to its people in the meantime only to regain the power to render the people powerless in return. Similar to what was said in the earlier paragraph, he describes the self-destructive events that ensued,

"Offended nations began to demand what belonged to them and had beenpromised to them - chains and prisons became their lot! Crowns transgressedtheir pledges, the constitution of France was violated at its very base. Manuel, the representative of the people, was dragged from the Chamber of Deputies by gendarmes! Freedom of the press was restricted, the army of France, against its own will, was sent to destroy the lawful liberty of Spain."

This impact on European society and politics only made more complications. Kakhovsky believes that they've essentially betrayed the people, and that's why it's not only absurd but also it wouldn't make sense as a reward for the people who fought for them under their armies and navies. Thus, what ensued afterwards is just MORE revolutions and rebellions. You can defeat Napoleon's army but not his ideas.

Kakhovsky was obviously shaped by thinkers such as Locke and Rousseau, and possibly even Hegel, who all believed in the power of necessity. The promise of liberty and freedom is so powerful that it becomes a natural necessity, and thus people begin to crave it so much that it becomes a basic need just like food and water just as Locke has postulated wherein he believed that all individuals are equal & born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. These rights are given to them by God, and they can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights are said to be "life, liberty, and property."

Metternich is more Hobbesian. Kakhovksy is a disciple of Locke. Metternich believes in absolutist principles, and the necessity of the king imposing his power in order to enforce legality for the necessity of quelling chaos and destruction. Kakhovsky believes in the necessity of natural rights, because they're so powerful and that the people have woken up that it's become irreversible at this point to undo what Napoleon has imposed on Europe: that is, the promise of liberty for all disregarding class and social status. Their differences were rooted in that Kakhovksy supported Napoleon and Metternich dislikes Napoleon.

Kakhovsky targets Tsar Alexander's political views as a cause of the Decemberist rebellion. Metternich seeks to appropriate Alexander I's pro-revolutionary views by instigating that they are essential for gaining the support of the people, who he believes are uncouth and ignorant by nature, and thus their opinions aren't worth hearing. Metternich writes,

"Let the Governments govern, and authority be something more than a name, for it is nothing without power. By ruling, it really ameliorates the situation, but let authority remove nothing from the foundations on which it rests; let it act, but not concede. It should exercise its rights, but not discuss them. It should be just (and to be so it must be strong), and should respect all rights as it would have its own respected."

Metternich believes that authority is more than a title, and that it is by itself necessity. Just as Hobbes postulated, authority is there to quell chaos and destruction. Metternich believes that by appeasing to the Russian people, it's only a means towards restoring the monarchical order which in necessity is there to make the people happy despite what the revolutionaries believe which is that the monarchy is there to oppress people and to limit their happiness. The paradox here is that Metternich believes that "liberty", a word he has feelings of ambiguity towards, can only come from order, which would allow natural development to occur. Kakhovsky believes that the monarchy must be dissolved because they are a limit to true liberty.

Source of quotes:

Prince Klemens von Metternich, Results of the Congress at Laybach (1821)

Pyotr Kakhovsky, The Decembrist Insurrection in Russia (1825)