Which philosopher was cited in Federalist No 10 and No 51 as a critic of pure democracy and a proponent of the separation of powers?

• A. John Locke
• B. Montesquieu
• C. Rousseau
• D. Hobbes

Answer: (B)

The idea being tested is the separation of powers and why pure democracy can be problematic. Montesquieu argued that liberty is best protected when government power is divided among separate branches, each able to check the others, rather than concentrated in a single body. This structure—distinct legislative, executive, and judicial powers with built‑in checks and balances—helps prevent domination by any one faction and reduces the risk of tyranny.

In the Federalist Papers, the authors repeatedly lean on Montesquieu’s framework to justify a large republic with divided powers, showing how his insight about separation of powers informs the design of the U.S. Constitution. The other philosophers listed don’t fit as precisely: Locke emphasizes natural rights and limited government, Hobbes argues for a strong sovereign, and Rousseau favors popular sovereignty and direct democracy. Montesquieu is the one most closely associated with the critique of pure democracy and the advocacy for a segmented, balanced government.