Deputies or Representatives

As soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens, and they would rather serve with their money than with their persons, the State is not far from its fall. When it is necessary to march out to war, they pay troops and stay at home: when it is necessary to meet in council, they name deputies and stay at home. By reason of idleness and money, they end by having soldiers to enslave their country and representatives to sell it.

As soon as public service stops being citizens’ main concern, and they prefer paying to serving personally, the State nears collapse. When citizens need to march off to war, they pay troops and stay home. When citizens need to meet in council, they appoint representatives and stay home. Because of laziness and money, citizens end up with soldiers who enslave their country and representatives who sell it.

It is through the hustle of commerce and the arts, through the greedy self-interest of profit, and through softness and love of amenities that personal services are replaced by money payments. Men surrender a part of their profits in order to have time to increase them at leisure. Make gifts of money, and you will not be long without chains. The word finance is a slavish word, unknown in the city-state. In a country that is truly free, the citizens do everything with their own arms and nothing by means of money; so far from paying to be exempted from their duties, they would even pay for the privilege of fulfilling them themselves. I am far from taking the common view: I hold enforced labour to be less opposed to liberty than taxes.

The bustle of commerce and the arts, greedy pursuit of profit, and love of ease and comfort all have one result. People replace personal service with money payments. They give up part of their profits to free up time to earn more at their leisure. Give money, and you will soon find yourself in chains. The word finance is a word of slavery, unknown in the city-state. In a truly free country, citizens do everything through their own efforts and nothing through money. Far from paying to avoid their duties, citizens would even pay for the privilege of performing those duties themselves. My view is far from the common one: I believe forced labor conflicts less with freedom than taxes do.

The better the constitution of a State is, the more do public affairs encroach on private in the minds of the citizens. Private affairs are even of much less importance, because the aggregate of the common happiness furnishes a greater proportion of that of each individual, so that there is less for him to seek in particular cares. In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies: under a bad government no one cares to stir a step to get to them, because no one is interested in what happens there, because it is foreseen that the general will will not prevail, and lastly because domestic cares are all-absorbing. Good laws lead to the making of better ones; bad ones bring about worse. As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State What does it matter to me? the State may be given up for lost.

The better a State’s constitution, the more public affairs take priority over private concerns in citizens’ minds. Private affairs even become much less important, because shared happiness accounts for more of each person’s happiness. So each person has less happiness to seek through private concerns. In a well-ordered city, every man rushes to the assemblies. Under a bad government, no one bothers to take a single step to attend. This is because no one cares what happens there, and everyone expects that the general will will not prevail. Finally, concerns at home absorb all their attention. Good laws lead to better laws. Bad laws lead to worse ones. As soon as any man says about the State’s affairs, What does it matter to me? the State can be considered lost.

The lukewarmness of patriotism, the activity of private interest, the vastness of States, conquest and the abuse of government suggested the method of having deputies or representatives of the people in the national assemblies. These are what, in some countries, men have presumed to call the Third Estate. Thus the individual interest of two orders is put first and second; the public interest occupies only the third place.

Weak patriotism, active private interests, vast States, conquest, and abuses of government led to the idea of representation. Deputies or representatives would speak for the people in national assemblies. In some countries, people have presumed to call these representatives the Third Estate. So the private interests of two social orders take first and second place. The public interest comes only third.

Sovereignty, for the same reason as makes it inalienable, cannot be represented; it lies essentially in the general will, and will does not admit of representation: it is either the same, or other; there is no intermediate possibility. The deputies of the people, therefore, are not and cannot be its representatives: they are merely its stewards, and can carry through no definitive acts. Every law the people has not ratified in person is null and void—is, in fact, not a law. The people of England regards itself as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing. The use it makes of the short moments of liberty it enjoys shows indeed that it deserves to lose them.

Sovereignty cannot be represented for the same reason that it cannot be given away. Sovereignty lies in the general will, and no one can express that will on someone else’s behalf. A will is either the same will or a different one. There is no middle ground. The people’s deputies, therefore, are not and cannot be the people’s representatives. They are merely entrusted with the people’s affairs and cannot make any final decisions. Every law the people have not approved in person is null and void. In fact, it is not a law. The people of England consider themselves free, but they are badly mistaken. They are free only while electing members of parliament. As soon as those members are elected, the people become slaves and count for nothing. Indeed, the way the people use their brief moments of freedom shows that they deserve to lose them.

The idea of representation is modern; it comes to us from feudal government, from that iniquitous and absurd system which degrades humanity and dishonours the name of man. In ancient republics and even in monarchies, the people never had representatives; the word itself was unknown. It is very singular that in Rome, where the tribunes were so sacrosanct, it was never even imagined that they could usurp the functions of the people, and that in the midst of so great a multitude they never attempted to pass on their own authority a single plebiscitum. We can, however, form an idea of the difficulties caused sometimes by the people being so numerous, from what happened in the time of the Gracchi, when some of the citizens had to cast their votes from the roofs of buildings.

The idea of representation is modern. It comes to us from feudal government, that unjust and absurd system that degrades humanity and dishonors humankind. In ancient republics and even in monarchies, the people never had representatives. The word itself was unknown. In Rome, the tribunes were treated as sacred and inviolable. Yet, remarkably, no one ever imagined that the tribunes could take over the people's powers. Even among such a vast crowd, the tribunes never tried to pass a single plebiscitum by their own authority. Still, events in the time of the Gracchi show the difficulties sometimes caused by the people's great numbers. Some citizens had to cast their votes from the roofs of buildings.

Where right and liberty are everything, disadvantages count for nothing. Among this wise people everything was given its just value, its lictors were allowed to do what its tribunes would never have dared to attempt; for it had no fear that its lictors would try to represent it.

Where rights and freedom are everything, disadvantages count for nothing. These wise people gave everything its proper value. They allowed their lictors to do things their tribunes would never have dared to attempt. This was because the people had no fear that their lictors would try to represent them.

To explain, however, in what way the tribunes did sometimes represent it, it is enough to conceive how the government represents the Sovereign. Law being purely the declaration of the general will, it is clear that, in the exercise of the legislative power, the people cannot be represented; but in that of the executive power, which is only the force that is applied to give the law effect, it both can and should be represented. We thus see that if we looked closely into the matter we should find that very few nations have any laws. However that may be, it is certain that the tribunes, possessing no executive power, could never represent the Roman people by right of the powers entrusted to them, but only by usurping those of the senate.

To explain how the tribunes sometimes represented it, however, we need only consider how the government represents the Sovereign. Law is simply the declaration of the general will. Clearly, then, the people cannot be represented when exercising legislative power. But the people can and should be represented when exercising executive power. Executive power is only the force used to put the law into effect. So we see that, if we examined the matter closely, we would find that very few nations have any laws. However that may be, the tribunes certainly had no executive power. They could therefore never represent the Roman people through the powers entrusted to them. They could do so only by seizing the senate’s powers.

In Greece, all that the people had to do, it did for itself; it was constantly assembled in the public square. The Greeks lived in a mild climate; they had no natural greed; slaves did their work for them; their great concern was with liberty. Lacking the same advantages, how can you preserve the same rights? Your severer climates add to your needs;¹ for half the year your public squares are uninhabitable; the flatness of your languages unfits them for being heard in the open air; you sacrifice more for profit than for liberty, and fear slavery less than poverty.

In Greece, the people did everything they needed to do themselves. They were constantly gathered in the public square. The Greeks lived in a mild climate. They were not naturally greedy. Slaves did their work for them. Their main concern was liberty. Without the same advantages, how can you preserve the same rights? Your harsher climates increase your needs.¹ For half the year, your public squares are unfit for use. Your languages lack the vocal range needed to be heard in the open air. You sacrifice more for profit than for liberty, and you fear slavery less than poverty.

What then? Is liberty maintained only by the help of slavery? It may be so. Extremes meet. Everything that is not in the course of nature has its disadvantages, civil society most of all. There are some unhappy circumstances in which we can only keep our liberty at others' expense, and where the citizen can be perfectly free only when the slave is most a slave. Such was the case with Sparta. As for you, modern peoples, you have no slaves, but you are slaves yourselves; you pay for their liberty with your own. It is in vain that you boast of this preference; I find in it more cowardice than humanity.

What then? Can freedom be maintained only through slavery? It may be so. Extremes meet. Everything outside the course of nature has its drawbacks, especially civil society. In some unfortunate circumstances, we can keep our freedom only at other people's expense. In those circumstances, citizens can be completely free only when slaves are most completely enslaved. That was the case in Sparta. As for you, modern peoples, you have no slaves, but you are slaves yourselves. You pay for their freedom with your own. You boast of choosing this trade-off, but your boasting is pointless. I see more cowardice than humanity in your choice.

I do not mean by all this that it is necessary to have slaves, or that the right of slavery is legitimate: I am merely giving the reasons why modern peoples, believing themselves to be free, have representatives, while ancient peoples had none. In any case, the moment a people allows itself to be represented, it is no longer free: it no longer exists.

I do not mean that slaves are necessary or that anyone has a legitimate right to enslave others. I am only explaining why modern peoples have representatives, believing themselves free, while ancient peoples had none. In any case, the moment a people allows itself to be represented, it is no longer free. It no longer exists as a people.

All things considered, I do not see that it is possible henceforth for the Sovereign to preserve among us the exercise of its rights, unless the city is very small. But if it is very small, it will be conquered? No. I will show later on how the external strength of a great people² may be combined with the convenient polity and good order of a small State.

All things considered, I see no way for the Sovereign to keep exercising its rights among us from now on, unless the city is very small. But if the city is very small, won't it be conquered? No. I will show later how the external strength of a great people² can be combined with the practical government and good order of a small State.