On the other hand, the governmental models in Utopia are very admirable. Human rights are respected as people have the freedom and rights which are overtly practiced as opposed to Europe where people’s human rights face limitations due to undue influence of the rich people. The government of Utopia upholds democracy for its citizens by maintaining in-built protections structures which ensure compliance with the rule of law and its transparency. More perceives this type of government as far removed from the reality government of Europe where politicians are more involved with power struggles and corruption for personal selfishness.
In Europe, although the parliament is present, the majority citizens are denied their human rights of voting and exercising their democratic and human rights by voting in their preferred members. However, in Utopia, the parliament is democratic and human rights are respected and people allowed to freely exercise their democratic rights. Utopia views land as a property to be worked on rather than to be owned which prevents the social evils of wealth accumulation which is prevalent in Europe. Furthermore, Utopians are peaceful and they have not history of entering into treaties with other nations to maintain their peace.
Despite similarity in expressing the political issues affecting their respective countries, both works express distinct views when it comes to their religious, gender and economic systems. Utopia is viewed as the ideal modern community as opposed to the patriarchal and authoritative society of the historical days. There are many positive aspects of the community presented in Utopia especially because the book presents a contrast between two societies at the same time; one which is perfect called Utopia and Europe which presents all societal evil and vices.
While Utopia presents problems faced in Europe, it makes a point of recommending the solutions by using a rather accommodating tone. On the other hand, Montesquieu’s Persian letters is not accommodating to the problems experienced in France and uses a very satirical and sarcastic tone. Furthermore, Montesquieu does not propose any solution which could be used to solve the problems presented. More’s Utopia and Montesquieu’s Persian letters address their religious issues in different perspectives. While religious choices in France are constrained, Utopians have the freedom of worship regardless of their differences.
Montesquieu attacks the leadership of the pope especially with his involvement in politics of France.
Montesquieu, Persian Letters, C.J. Betts, ed., New York: Penguins Books Ltd, 2004. Print.
More, Sir Thomas. Utopia. Ed. Robert M. Adams. New York: Norton and Company, 1992. Print.