Mimetic Governance: Confucian Thought in Robespierre’s “On the Abolition of the Death Penalty”

Maximilien Robespierre, otherwise known as “the Incorruptible,” delivered a speech titled “On the Abolition of the Death Penalty” (1791) with the objective of debating and disputing the utility of the death penalty. For Robespierre, penal punishment was a weapon of subjugation that proved unproductive as a deterrent of crime. It rallies “the force of all” against the individual subject to death. In contrast, a death by self-defence is less morally corrupt because it requires the defender to be relatively equal in power with the offender: “opposing my strength against his.” This balance protects the defendant from the criminal implications of manslaughter, a belief held to this day as outlined in Section 34 of the Canadian Criminal Code. On the other hand, those who take advantage of the weak or the helpless, such as a disarmed enemy or innocent child, are preforming acts of savagery. A man subjected to societal punishment is weaker than “a child is before a grown man.” He is no longer a criminal, but a victim of the ad hoc whims of powerful “barbarians.” For Robespierre, the death of this helpless man reflects the ineptitude of society to deter crime, choosing instead to mobilize capital punishment and cowardly governance.

Ancient Chinese Confucian philosopher Mencius (372-289 BC) spoke of mimesis as the chief means fostering a benevolent and secure government. By exercising benevolence (ren) and righteousness (yi), which are cultivated by conforming to the sacred rites, man will become a model for other men. His cultivated goodness is magnetic. In the same way, an emperor who cultivates the good and receives the Mandate of Heaven—the legitimization of his rule by the heavens— “will be matchless in the Empire” (IV. I. VII.). Robespierre articulates a sentiment akin to that of Mencius: both thinkers imagine punishment as the antithesis of a good people. Capital punishment deters the cultivation of good citizens as it “dulls the morals sentiments of the people,” but rule in accordance with “the voice of justice and reason” will allow naturally fallible man to “return to virtue.” Robespierre maintains that the death penalty frightens the public through “a fear of incurring it” as the penalty does not serve to rehabilitate. In 18th century France, man was defined and judged by his flaws because—according to Robespierre—legislators have failed to realize their chief duty: the shaping of and preservation of public morals, the chief foundation of societal happiness. If a natural man was at odds with other men, then society would mandate a legalistic ideology. However, for Robespierre man was at odds due to the status quo of society and law. Akin to the power of Mencius’ mimetic emperor (“When the prince is benevolent, everyone else is benevolent” (IV. II. V)) and trap-like image of punishment (“To punish them after they have fallen foul of the law is to set a trap for the people” (III. I. III.)), the laws of governance must “offer the purest model of justice and reason” to avoid “[showing] the people cruel scenes…and [distorted] notions of justice and injustice.” In conclusion, selfish and cruel behaviour in those most powerful will corrupt the body politic because mankind is a creature of mimicry. Although this view was ultimately rejected by the assembly because punishment was deemed necessary to maintain public order, the notion of mimetic governance persists today.