Sect. 132. THE majority having, as has been shewed, upon men’s first uniting into society, the whole power of the community naturally in them, may employ all that power in making laws for the community from time to time, and executing those laws by officers of their own appointing; and then the form of the government is a perfect democracy: or else may put the power of making laws into the hands of a few select men, and their heirs or successors; and then it is an oligarchy: or else into the hands of one man, and then it is a monarchy: if to him and his heirs, it is an hereditary monarchy: if to him only for life, but upon his death the power only of nominating a successor to return to them; an elective monarchy. And so accordingly of these the community may make compounded and mixed forms of government, as they think good. And if the legislative power be at first given by the majority to one or more persons only for their lives, or any limited time, and then the supreme power to revert to them again; when it is so reverted, the community may dispose of it again anew into what hands they please, and so constitute a new form of government: for the form of government depending upon the placing the supreme power, which is the legislative, it being impossible to conceive that an inferior power should prescribe to a superior, or any but the supreme make laws, according as the power of making laws is placed, such is the form of the commonwealth.
132. The majority, as has been shown, hold the whole power of the community when people first unite into society. They may use that power to make laws for the community from time to time. They may also enforce those laws through officers they appoint. When they do this, the government is a pure democracy. Or they may place the lawmaking power in the hands of a few chosen men and their heirs or successors. That form of government is an oligarchy. Or they may place it in the hands of one man. That is a monarchy. If the power is given to him and his heirs, it is a hereditary monarchy. If it is given to him only for his life, and on his death the people regain the power to name a successor, it is an elective monarchy. The community may also combine these types into mixed or compound forms of government as they think best. If the majority first give the legislative power to one or more persons only for their lives or for a limited time, and the supreme power then returns to the people, the community may reassign it as they please. In this way they may establish a new form of government. The form of government depends on where the supreme power is placed. The supreme power is the legislative power. It is impossible for an inferior power to prescribe to a superior. Only the supreme power can make laws. Therefore, whatever body holds the lawmaking power determines the form of the commonwealth.
Sect. 133. By commonwealth, I must be understood all along to mean, not a democracy, or any form of government, but any independent community, which the Latines signified by the word civitas, to which the word which best answers in our language, is commonwealth, and most properly expresses such a society of men, which community or city in English does not; for there may be subordinate communities in a government; and city amongst us has a quite different notion from commonwealth: and therefore, to avoid ambiguity, I crave leave to use the word commonwealth in that sense, in which I find it used by king James the first; and I take it to be its genuine signification; which if any body dislike, I consent with him to change it for a better.
133. By "commonwealth" I mean an independent community, not a democracy or any particular form of government. The Latins used the word civitas for this idea. The English word that best matches it is "commonwealth." It most properly describes such a society of people. The words "community" or "city" in English do not. There can be subordinate communities within one government. "City" has a quite different meaning from "commonwealth" for us. To avoid ambiguity, I will therefore use the word "commonwealth" in the sense used by King James I. I take that to be its proper meaning. If anyone dislikes this, I will agree to change it for a better word.