It is not, however, answered, because everyone wants to answer it in his own way.Subjects extol public tranquillity, citizens individual liberty;the one class prefers security of possessions, the other that of person;the one regards as the best government that which is most severe, the other maintains that the mildest is the best; the one wants crimes punished, the other wants them prevented; the one wants the State to be feared by its neighbours, the other prefers that it should be ignored; the one is content if money circulates, the other demands that the people shall have bread.Even if an agreement were come to on these and similar points, should we have got any further? As moral qualities do not admit of exact measurement, agreement about the mark does not mean agreement about the valuation.
For my part, I am continually astonished that a mark so ****** is not recognised, or that men are of so bad faith as not to admit it.What is the end of political association? The preservation and prosperity of its members.And what is the surest mark of their preservation and prosperity?
Their numbers and population.Seek then nowhere else this mark that is in dispute.The rest being equal, the government under which, without external aids, without naturalisation or colonies, the citizens increase and multiply most, is beyond question the best.The government under which a people wanes and diminishes is the worst.Calculators, it is left for you to count, to measure, to compare.2710.THE ABUSE OF GOVERNMENT AND ITS TENDENCY TO DEGENERATE A S the particular will acts constantly in opposition to the general will, the government continually exerts itself against the Sovereignty.The greater this exertion becomes, the more the constitution changes; and, as there is in this case no other corporate will to create an equilibrium by resisting the will of the prince, sooner or later the prince must inevitably suppress the Sovereign and break the social treaty.This is the unavoidable and inherent defect which, from the very birth of the body politic, tends ceaselessly to destroy it, as age and death end by destroying the human body.
There are two general courses by which government degenerates: i.e., when it undergoes contraction, or when the State is dissolved.
Government undergoes contraction when it passes from the many to the few, that is, from democracy to aristocracy, and from aristocracy to royalty.
To do so is its natural propensity.28 If it took the backward course from the few to the many, it could be said that it was relaxed; but this inverse sequence is impossible.
Indeed, governments never change their form except when their energy is exhausted and leaves them too weak to keep what they have.If a government at once extended its sphere and relaxed its stringency, its force would become absolutely nil, and it would persist still less.It is therefore necessary to wind up the spring and tighten the hold as it gives way: or else the State it sustains will come to grief.
The dissolution of the State may come about in either of two ways.
First, when the prince ceases to administer the State in accordance with the laws, and usurps the Sovereign power.A remarkable change then occurs: not the government, but the State, undergoes contraction; I mean that the great State is dissolved, and another is formed within it, composed solely of the members of the government, which becomes for the rest of the people merely master and tyrant.So that the moment the government usurps the Sovereignty, the social compact is broken, and all private citizens recover by right their natural liberty, and are forced, but not bound, to obey.
The same thing happens when the members of the government severally usurp the power they should exercise only as a body; this is as great an infraction of the laws, and results in even greater disorders.There are then, so to speak, as many princes as there are magistrates, and the State, no less divided than the government, either perishes or changes its form.
When the State is dissolved, the abuse of government, whatever it is, bears the common name of anarchy.To distinguish, democracy degenerates into ochlocracy , and aristocracy into oligarchy; and I would add that royalty degenerates into tyranny; but this last word is ambiguous and needs explanation.
In vulgar usage, a tyrant is a king who governs violently and without regard for justice and law.In the exact sense, a tyrant is an individual who arrogates to himself the royal authority without having a right to it.This is how the Greeks understood the word "tyrant": they applied it indifferently to good and bad princes whose authority was not legitimate.29 Tyrant and usurper are thus perfectly synonymous terms.
In order that I may give different things different names, I call him who usurps the royal authority a tyrant , and him who usurps the sovereign power a despot.The tyrant is he who thrusts himself in contrary to the laws to govern in accordance with the laws; the despot is he who sets himself above the laws themselves.Thus the tyrant cannot be a despot, but the despot is always a tyrant.11.THE DEATH OF THE BODY POLITIC S UCH is the natural and inevitable tendency of the best constituted governments.If Sparta and Rome perished, what State can hope to endure for ever? If we would set up a long-lived form of government, let us not even dream of ****** it eternal.If we are to succeed, we must not attempt the impossible, or flatter ourselves that we are endowing the work of man with a stability of which human conditions do not permit.