The Same Topic (Continued)

It is not enough for the assembled people to have once fixed the constitution of the State by giving its sanction to a body of law; it is not enough for it to have set up a perpetual government, or provided once for all for the election of magistrates. Besides the extraordinary assemblies unforeseen circumstances may demand, there must be fixed periodical assemblies which cannot be abrogated or prorogued, so that on the proper day the people is legitimately called together by law, without need of any formal summoning.

It is not enough for the people, gathered together, to establish the State’s constitution once by approving a body of laws. Nor is it enough to establish a permanent government or settle once and for all how magistrates will be elected. Unforeseen circumstances may call for special assemblies. Besides these, there must be regular assemblies on fixed dates that cannot be canceled or postponed. In this way, the law itself lawfully calls the people together on the appointed day, without any formal summons.

But, apart from these assemblies authorised by their date alone, every assembly of the people not summoned by the magistrates appointed for that purpose, and in accordance with the prescribed forms, should be regarded as unlawful, and all its acts as null and void, because the command to assemble should itself proceed from the law.

But apart from assemblies authorized by their scheduled dates alone, every assembly of the people must meet two requirements. The magistrates appointed for that purpose must call the assembly, and they must follow the required procedures. Otherwise, the assembly should be considered unlawful, and all its actions should be considered null and void. This is because the order to assemble must itself come from the law.

The greater or less frequency with which lawful assemblies should occur depends on so many considerations that no exact rules about them can be given. It can only be said generally that the stronger the government the more often should the Sovereign show itself.

How often lawful assemblies should meet depends on so many factors that no exact rules can be given. Only this general point can be made: the stronger the government, the more often the Sovereign should assemble.

This, I shall be told, may do for a single town; but what is to be done when the State includes several? Is the sovereign authority to be divided? Or is it to be concentrated in a single town to which all the rest are made subject?

People will tell me this may work for a single town. But what should be done when the State includes several towns? Should sovereign authority be divided? Or should sovereign authority be concentrated in one town, with all the others made subject to that town?

Neither the one nor the other, I reply. First, the sovereign authority is one and simple, and cannot be divided without being destroyed. In the second place, one town cannot, any more than one nation, legitimately be made subject to another, because the essence of the body politic lies in the reconciliation of obedience and liberty, and the words subject and Sovereign are identical correlatives the idea of which meets in the single word "citizen."

Neither, I reply. First, sovereign authority is a single whole and cannot be divided without being destroyed. Second, one town can no more legitimately be placed under another town’s authority than one nation under another nation’s authority. This is because the political community rests on reconciling obedience with freedom. The terms subject and Sovereign describe inseparable, corresponding roles, both united in the single word "citizen."

I answer further that the union of several towns in a single city is always bad, and that, if we wish to make such a union, we should not expect to avoid its natural disadvantages. It is useless to bring up abuses that belong to great States against one who desires to see only small ones; but how can small States be given the strength to resist great ones, as formerly the Greek towns resisted the Great King, and more recently Holland and Switzerland have resisted the House of Austria?

I would add that uniting several towns into a single city is always bad. If we want such a union, we should not expect to escape its natural disadvantages. Pointing out the abuses of large States is useless against someone who wants only small States. But how can small States gain the strength to resist large ones? The Greek towns once resisted the Great King. More recently, Holland and Switzerland have resisted the House of Austria. How can small States resist large ones as they did?

Nevertheless, if the State cannot be reduced to the right limits, there remains still one resource; this is, to allow no capital, to make the seat of government move from town to town, and to assemble by turn in each the Provincial Estates of the country.

Still, if the State cannot be reduced to the right size, one option remains: have no capital. Move the seat of government from town to town. Hold meetings of the country’s Provincial Estates in each town in turn.

People the territory evenly, extend everywhere the same rights, bear to every place in it abundance and life: by these means will the State become at once as strong and as well governed as possible. Remember that the walls of towns are built of the ruins of the houses of the countryside. For every palace I see raised in the capital, my mind's eye sees a whole country made desolate.

Settle people evenly across the territory. Give everyone the same rights everywhere, and bring prosperity and life to every part of the territory. These measures will make the State both as strong and as well governed as possible. Remember that town walls are built from the ruins of country homes. For every palace I see built in the capital, I picture an entire countryside laid waste.