Book 3, Chapter 10
Government Abuse and Its Tendency to Deteriorate
As 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.
Just as the particular will constantly opposes the general will, the government continually works against the Sovereignty. The stronger this effort becomes, the more the constitution changes. In this case, no other collective will can resist the prince’s will and create a balance. So, sooner or later, the prince must inevitably suppress the Sovereign and break the social contract. This unavoidable, built-in flaw constantly works to destroy the political body from the moment of its birth. In the same way, aging and death eventually destroy 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 declines in two general ways. That is, when governing power becomes concentrated in fewer hands, or when the State dissolves.
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. If it took the backward course from the few to the many, it could be said that it was relaxed; by this inverse sequence is impossible.
Government contracts when power passes from the many to the few, from democracy to aristocracy, and from aristocracy to monarchy. This is government's natural tendency. If power moved in the opposite direction, from the few to the many, government could be said to loosen. But this reverse progression is impossible.
The Republic of Venice’s slow formation and development in its lagoons offer a notable example of this sequence. Most astonishingly, after more than twelve hundred years, the Venetians still seem to be at the second stage. They reached that stage with the Serrar di Consiglio in 1198. The ancient Dukes are cited as evidence against this view. But whatever the Squittinio della libertà veneta may say about those Dukes, they were demonstrably not Sovereigns in any sense.
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.
Indeed, governments change their form only when their energy runs out, leaving them too weak to preserve what they have. If a government expanded its scope while loosening its control, its power would vanish completely. Such a government would be even less able to survive. So, as the government's grip weakens, the spring must be wound tighter and its hold strengthened. Otherwise, the State the government supports will collapse.
The dissolution of the State may come about in either of two ways.
The State may dissolve in one 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.
First, when the prince stops governing the State according to its laws and seizes the Sovereign power. A remarkable change then takes place: the State shrinks, not the government. I mean that the larger State dissolves, and a new State forms within it, made up only of government members. The government becomes nothing more than a master and tyrant over the rest of the people. So the moment the government seizes Sovereignty, the social contract is broken. All private citizens then regain their natural liberty as a right. They are forced to obey, but have no obligation to do so.
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.
The same thing happens when individual members of the government seize power they should exercise only as a body. This is just as serious a violation of the laws and causes even greater disorder. There are then, so to speak, as many rulers as there are magistrates. The State becomes just as divided as the government and either collapses 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.
When the State falls apart, any form of government abuse is known by the general name anarchy. More specifically, democracy degenerates into ochlocracy and aristocracy into oligarchy. I would add that monarchy degenerates into tyranny. But this last word has more than one meaning 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. Tyrant and usurper are thus perfectly synonymous terms.
In everyday usage, a tyrant is a king who rules violently and ignores justice and law. In its precise sense, a tyrant is someone who claims royal authority without any right to that authority. The Greeks understood the word "tyrant" in this way. They applied the term equally to good and bad princes whose authority was not legitimate. Tyrant and usurper therefore mean exactly the same thing.
Omnes enim et habentur et dicuntur tyranni, qui potestate utuntur perpetua in ea civitate quæ libertate usa est (Cornelius Nepos, Life of Miltiades). [For all those are called and considered tyrants, who hold perpetual power in a State that has known liberty.] It is true that Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics, Book viii, chapter x) distinguishes tyrants from kings by whose interests they serve. A tyrant governs for his own benefit, while a king governs only for his subjects’ good. But all Greek authors generally used the word tyrant differently, as Xenophon's Hiero shows most clearly. Moreover, Aristotle's distinction would mean that not a single king has existed since the world began.
In order that I may give different things different names, I call him who usurps the royal authority 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.
To give different things different names, I call someone who seizes royal authority unlawfully a tyrant. I call someone who seizes sovereign power unlawfully a despot. A tyrant takes power against the law but governs according to the law. A despot places himself above the laws themselves. So a tyrant cannot be a despot, but a despot is always a tyrant.