Reflection on Benjamin Constants Political Liberalism

I’ve been reading How To Be Liberal by Ian Dunt — a compelling exploration of liberalism’s evolution from its origin to present day. According to Dunt liberalism was born when René Descartes’ uttered his famous axiom, “I think therefore I am.” It’s a moment where individual consciousness — the thinking self — becomes the foundation for all further inquiry, political or otherwise.

But as I read further, I encountered what I believe is the crystallization of liberalism in its political dimension. And the credit goes to French political philosopher Benjamin Constant.

At the heart of Constant’s philosophy was individualism. He envisioned the individual as someone distinct — especially those “who were unmoored from society.” These individuals, he argued, must be protected from the majority, whose judgmental attitudes about morality and family life threatened their freedom. “They were not to be forced to do what others thought was best for them. No-one really knew what was best for anyone.”

Constant had a sharp critique of earlier revolutionary thinkers, particularly Rousseau. He pinpointed a key failure in their thinking: “The mistake of Rousseau and of writers … comes from the way their ideas on politics were formed. They have seen in history small number of men, or even one alone, in possession of immense power, which did a lot of harm. But their wrath has been directed against the wielders of power and not the power itself.”

This is where Constant’s insight cuts deep. His concern was not simply who held power, but the very existence of unchecked power itself.

“Instead of destroying it (power), they have dreamed only of relocating it,” he warned. “It was a plague; but they took it as something to be conquered; and they endowed the whole society with it. Inevitably it moved from there to the majority and from majority into a few hands.”

This idea resonated deeply with me. Those familiar words — “democracy is government of the people…” — had always stirred a quiet skepticism in me. Is it really of the people, when individuals differ so drastically? Constant addresses this beautifully. He questioned the whole idea of “the people.” In his view, there was no unified “will of the people.” “There was only varied will of individual, which even they themselves would struggle to articulate in a consistent way.”

This leads to a sobering conclusion: political movements that claim to speak for “the people” often pave the way for authoritarian leaders. “They’d claim to represent this mythical entity (will of the people), summon up tremendous power, and use it in their own interests.”

So yes, the people are sovereign — but once that power is acknowledged, it must be limited. Constant believed in a framework of inalienable rights that protect individuals from both state and societal interference.

“There is a part of human existence,” he wrote, “which necessarily remains individual and independent and by right beyond political jurisdiction.”

That idea — the right to privacy, to live one’s life freely without external intrusion — became central to liberal politics. Constant wasn’t merely defending individual rights; he was proposing that they become the very starting point of political discourse. Any limitation on them required rigorous justification.

As Constant put it: “To defend the rights of minorities is to defend the rights of all.”

Final Thoughts

Reading Ian Dunt’s How To Be Liberal is like watching centuries of philosophical and political struggle unfold before your eyes. Benjamin Constant, perhaps not as widely known as Rousseau or Locke, emerges as a visionary who foresaw many of the dilemmas we still grapple with today. His insistence on placing the individual — especially the vulnerable, the different, the “unmoored” — at the heart of political life is not just a defense of rights. It’s a call to recognize the fragile beauty of human freedom in a world too easily swayed by collective abstractions.

If liberalism is to have a future, Constant’s message — the limit of power, the sanctity of the individual — must remain central.