[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Machiavelli: I strongly doubt that all this is orthodox. According to you, it is the people (whomever
they are) who dispose of the sovereignty authority?
Montesquieu: Take care: by contesting it, you set yourself against a truth of pure common sense. This
is not a novelty in history. In ancient times, in the Middle Ages, especially when domination was
established outside of invasion or conquest, sovereign power originated through the free will of the
people in the original form of the election. To cite only one example: in France the leader of the
Carolingian race succeeded the descendants of Clovis and the dynasty of Hugues Capet those of
Charlemagne.[3] No doubt heredity came to be substituted for election. The splendor of services
rendered, the public renaissance and traditions have fixed sovereignty among the principle families of
Europe, and nothing is more legitimate. But the principle of national omnipotence is constantly found
at the basis of revolution; it has always been summoned for the consecration of new powers. It is an
anterior and preexisting principle that only realizes itself more narrowly in the diverse constitutions of
the modern States.
Machiavelli: But if it is the people who choose their masters, can they also overthrow them? If they
have the right to establish the form of government that suits them, what prevents them from changing it
at the whims of their caprice? It would not be the rule of order and liberty that emerges from their
doctrines, but the indefinite era of revolution.[4]
Montesquieu: You confound rights with the abuse that can result from their exercise, the principles
with their application; these are fundamental distinctions, without which we could not understand each
other.
Machiavelli: Do not hope to escape me: I asked you about the logical consequences; refuse them to me
if you like. I wish to know if, according to your principles, the people have the right to overthrow their
sovereigns.
Montesquieu: Yes, in extreme cases and for just cause.
Machiavelli: Who will be the judge of these extreme cases and of the justice of these extremities?
Montesquieu: And whom would you like it to be, if not the people themselves? Have things happened
otherwise since the beginning of the world? This is a redoubtable sanction, no doubt, but salutary and
inevitable. How can you not see that the contrary doctrine, the one that commands men to have respect
for the most odious governments, would make them fall back under the yoke of monarchical fatalism?
Machiavelli: Your system has only one disadvantage: it supposes the infallibility of the people's
reason; but do they not have -- as men and women -- passions, errors and injustices?
Montesquieu: When the people make mistakes, they will be punished like men who have sinned
against moral law.
Machiavelli: And how is that?
Montesquieu: They will be punished by the scourges of discord, anarchy, even despotism. There is no
other justice on earth, while awaiting that of God.
Machiavelli: You have used the word despotism: you see that one returns to it.
Montesquieu: Your objection is not worthy of your great spirit, Machiavelli; I imagined the most
extreme consequences of the principles that you oppose, which was sufficient for the notion of the true
to be falsified. God does not accord to the people either the power or the will to change the forms of
government that are the essential mode of their existence. In political societies as in organic beings, the
nature of things limits the expansion of free forces. It is necessary that the scope of your argument
limits itself to what is acceptable to reason.
You believe that under the influence of modern ideas, revolutions would be more frequent; they will
not be, [indeed] it is possible that they will be less frequent. Actually, the nations -- as you said a little
while ago -- currently live through industry, and what appears to you as a cause of servitude is in fact a
principle of order and liberty. Industrial civilizations have complaints that I do not ignore, but one must
not deny their benefits nor denature their tendencies. The societies that live by work, exchange and
credit are essentially Christian societies, whatever one says,[5] because all of these very powerful and
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]