3.3. 3. Of the Principle of Democracy.
There is no great share of probity necessary to support a
monarchical or despotic government. The force of laws in one, and the
prince's arm in the other, are sufficient to direct and maintain the
whole. But in a popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely,
virtue.
What I have here advanced is confirmed by the unanimous testimony of
historians, and is extremely agreeable to the nature of things. For it
is clear that in a monarchy, where he who commands the execution of the
laws generally thinks himself above them, there is less need of virtue
than in a popular government, where the person entrusted with the
execution of the laws is sensible of his being subject to their
direction.
Clear is it also that a monarch who, through bad advice or
indolence, ceases to enforce the execution of the laws, may easily
repair the evil; he has only to follow other advice; or to shake off
this indolence. But when, in a popular government, there is a suspension
of the laws, as this can proceed only from the corruption of the
republic, the state is certainly undone.
A very droll spectacle it was in the last century to behold the
impotent efforts of the English towards the establishment of democracy.
As they who had a share in the direction of public affairs were void of
virtue; as their ambition was inffamed by the success of the most daring
of their members;
[2]
as the prevailing parties were successively animated by the spirit of faction,
the government was continually changing: the people, amazed at so many
revolutions, in vain attempted to erect a commonwealth. At length, when the
country had undergone the most violent shocks, they were obliged to have
recourse to the very government which they had so wantonly proscribed.
When Sylla thought of restoring Rome to her liberty, this unhappy
city was incapable of receiving that blessing. She had only the feeble
remains of virtue, which were continually diminishing. Instead of being
roused from her lethargy by Csar, Tiberius, Caius Claudius, Nero, and
Domitian, she riveted every day her chains; if she struck some blows,
her aim was at the tyrant, not at the tyranny.
The politic Greeks, who lived under a popular government, knew no
other support than virtue. The modern inhabitants of that country are
entirely taken up with manufacture, commerce, finances, opulence, and
luxury.
When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are
disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community. The
objects of their desires are changed; what they were fond of before has
become indifferent; they were free while under the restraint of laws,
but they would fain now be free to act against law; and as each citizen
is like a slave who has run away from his master, that which was a maxim
of equity he calls rigour; that which was a rule of action he styles
constraint; and to precaution he gives the name of fear. Frugality, and
not the thirst of gain, now passes for avarice. Formerly the wealth of
individuals constituted the public treasure; but now this has become the
patrimony of private persons. The members of the commonwealth riot on
the public spoils, and its strength is only the power of a few, and the
licence of many.
Athens was possessed of the same number of forces when she triumphed
so gloriously as when with such infamy she was enslaved. She had twenty
thousand citizens
[3]
when she defended the Greeks against the Persians, when she contended for
empire with Sparta, and invaded Sicily. She had twenty thousand when Demetrius
Phalereus numbered them
[4]
as slaves are told by the head in a market-place. When Philip attempted to
lord it over Greece, and appeared at the gates of Athens
[5]
she had even then lost nothing but time. We may see in Demosthenes how
difficult it was to awaken her; she dreaded Philip, not as the enemy of her
liberty, but of her pleasures.
[6]
This famous city, which had withstood so many defeats, and having been so
often destroyed had as often risen out of her ashes, was overthrown at
Chronea, and at one blow deprived of all hopes of resource. What does it
avail her that Philip sends back her prisoners, if he does not return her
men? It was ever after as easy to triumph over the forces of Athens as it
had been difficult to subdue her virtue.
How was it possible for Carthage to maintain her ground? When
Hannibal, upon his being made praetor, endeavoured to hinder the
magistrates from plundering the republic, did not they complain of him
to the Romans? Wretches, who would fain be citizens without a city, and
be beholden for their riches to their very destroyers! Rome soon
insisted upon having three hundred of their principal citizens as
hostages; she obliged them next to surrender their arms and ships; and
then she declared war.
[7]
From the desperate efforts of this defenceless city, one may judge of what
she might have performed in her full vigour, and assisted by virtue.
Footnotes
[3]
Plutarch, "Life of Pericles"; Plato, in "Critia."
[4]
She had at that time twenty-one thousand citizens,
ten thousand strangers, and four hundred thousand slaves. See Athæenus, vi.
[5]
She had then twenty thousand citizens. See Demosthenes in
"Aristog."
[6]
They had passed a law, which rendered it a capital crime
for any one to propose applying the money designed for the theatres to military
service.
[7]
This lasted three years.
