Signs of Good Government

The question "What absolutely is the best government?" is unanswerable as well as indeterminate; or rather, there are as many good answers as there are possible combinations in the absolute and relative situations of all nations.

The question "What is the best government in all circumstances?" is both unclear and impossible to answer. Or rather, there are as many good answers as there are possible combinations of all nations' circumstances, both in themselves and in relation to one another.

But if it is asked by what sign we may know that a given people is well or ill governed, that is another matter, and the question, being one of fact, admits of an answer.

But if we ask what sign shows whether a people is well or badly governed, the question is different. The question concerns facts, so it can be answered.

It is not, however, answered, because every-one 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.

Yet the question remains unanswered, because everyone wants to answer it in their own way. Subjects praise public peace, while citizens praise individual freedom. The first group prefers secure property, the second personal safety. The first considers the strictest government the best, while the second argues that the mildest is best. The first wants crimes punished, while the second wants them prevented. The first wants the State to be feared by its neighbours, while the second prefers it to be ignored. The first is content if money circulates, while the second demands that the people have bread. Even if we agreed on these and similar points, would we have made any progress? Since moral qualities cannot be measured exactly, agreeing on what to measure does not mean agreeing on its value.

For my part, I am continually astonished that a mark so simple 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 worst. Calculators, it is left for you to count, to measure, to compare.¹

For my part, I am constantly amazed that people fail to recognize such a simple sign. Or they act in such bad faith that they refuse to admit it. What is the purpose of political association? The survival and prosperity of its members. And what is the surest sign of their survival and prosperity? Their population size and growth. So look nowhere else for the sign under dispute. All else being equal, the best government is unquestionably the one under which citizens increase and multiply most. Their growth must come without outside help, without granting citizenship to foreigners, and without colonies. The worst government is the one under which a people’s population declines and shrinks. You who work with numbers, the counting, measuring, and comparing are left to you.¹