From Chapter II, “Principles”, L’Autorité, of Mes Idées Politique, by Charles Maurras.
The property of power resembles other properties; it results from work, from work done and “done well”. Totally naked force can be applied for good and for evil, for construction, for destruction. When it did the good, when it constructed, it has merit from it, it has prestige and glory from it, it also sees the birth from it of this product which is called authority.
A power vacuum resembles the vacancy of a field. Whoever wants it, takes it; whoever is able to, holds onto it.
When there is a power vacuum it is, as Joan of Arc said, a great pity for the kingdom. And it is a great misfortune. To seize power in that case, if one has the strength, is simply an act of charity and humanity. A people needs a leader like a man needs bread. Not only, in such a hypothetical situation, is the right of first occupancy established, but there is a rigorous duty, a strict obligation for those who can occupy. When citizens are threatened by the enemy, it is necessary to command them if one can do it. When disorder is in the street, it is necessary to restore it back to order if one has the means.
Power is not an idea, it is a fact, and one believes in this fact when it makes itself felt; all criticism by the world can do nothing against the strength of a conqueror.
Most moralizers, who have confused minds, judged that power corrupted the heart of man. When power is elevated and lasts, when it lasts a little, the effect is totally the opposite; the learning of responsibilities matures and their experience perfects, rather than ruins, them.
⇐ Principle IV: Authority (Its Conditions) Principle V: Freedom ⇒
It should be noted, though, that not all religions are equal in this regard. Many people who subscribe to some religious principle or order have felt themselves justified to do great damage to their societies and others, to destroy a Traditional order and heritage (Ansar Dine in the great city of Timbuktu), and so on. If the religion is not grounded in Truth, then it can be as destructive as any “atheist Stalinist.”
The social contract can also be read in terms of different groups in society coming together, which is far closer to the way things really work (force isn’t discounted). Preferably, the ‘contract’ would then allow each member of each group the best way to self-development in their respective contexts and according to their abilities.
Judging from personal correspondence, there seems to be some confusion about this section. They seem to think that this is a justification for “fascism”. I responded that to me, it seems descriptive, not prescriptive. Actually, it can be read as the program for revolution as we wrote about recently. Revolutionary forces deliberately provoke public disorder precisely in order to create a power vacuum which they will attempt to fill. Since the public prefers order to chaos, they are usually welcomed … at first.
In the light of the previous section, remember that Maurras insisted that the temporal powers needed to be under the influence of religion. This is not true of modernity, following the American, French, and Russian revolutions which were overtly anti-religion to various degrees. That people who consider themselves pious or spiritual would favor modernity over the traditional thinkers who acknowledge the priority of the spiritual over the temporal, absolutely baffles me. They believe that modernity is the only “loving” and sane system.
This should also be read in the context of the “Social Contract” theories. Obviously, Maurras cannot accept that. The social contract theorists postulate that free individuals gather together to work out the mechanisms of power in their social group. Clearly that is not consistent with Maurras’ understanding, since he claims that some group will assert power rather than wait for a social contract. The contract theorists presume the individual is supreme, whereas the traditional view is that society is prior to the individual.
http://distributistreview.com/mag/2012/08/lord-acton-tends-to-corrupt/
Lord Acton’s dictum has lead to a great deal of mischief in the Anglo ghetto.