Jean-Jacques Rousseau · Complete work
Book III, Chapter 10
Book III, Chapter 10 of 49. Read it here for reference, or continue through the entire work without leaving the reader.
Open the complete readerOriginal French
De l’abus du Gouvernement, & de sa pente à dégénérer.
Comme la volonté particuliere agit sans cesse contre la volonté générale, ainsi le Gouvernement fait un effort continuel contre la Souveraineté. Plus cet effort augmente, plus la constitution s’altere, & comme il n’y a point ici d’autre volonté de corps qui résistant à celle du Prince fasse équilibre avec elle, il doit arriver tôt ou tard que le Prince opprime enfin le Souverain & rompe le traité Social. C’est-là le vice inhérent & inévitable qui dès la naissance du corps politique tend sans relàche à le détruire, de même que la vieillesse & la mort détruisent enfin le corps de l’homme.
Il y a deux voyes générales par lesquelles un Gouvernement dégénere; savoir, quand il se resserre, ou quand l’Etat se dissoût.
Le Gouvernement se resserre quand il passe du grand nombre au petit, c’est-à-dire de la Démocratie à l’Aristocratie, & de l’Aristocratie à la Royauté. C’est-là son inclinaison naturelle. S’il rétrogradoit du petit nombre au grand, on pourroit dire qu’il se relâche, mais ce progrès inverse est impossible.
En effet, jamais le Gouvernement ne change de forme que quand son ressort usé le laisse trop affoibli pour pouvoir conserver la sienne. Or s’il se relâchoit encore en s’étendant, sa force deviendroit tout-à-fait nulle, & il subsisteroit encore moins. Il faut donc remonter & serrer le ressort à mesure qu’il cede, autrement l’Etat qu’il soutient tomberoit en ruine.
Le cas de la dissolution de l’Etat peut arriver de deux manieres.
Premierement quand le Prince n’administre plus l’État selon les loix & qu’il usurpe le pouvoir souverain. Alors il se fait un changement remarquable; c’est que, non pas le Gouvernement, mais l’État se resserre; je veux dire que le grand État se dissout & qu’il s’en forme un autre dans celui-là, composé seulement des membres du Gouvernement, & qui n’est plus rien au reste du Peuple que son maitre & son tiran. De sorte qu’à l’instant que le Gouvernement usurpe la souveraineté, le pacte social est rompu, & tous les simples Citoyens, rentrés de droit dans leur liberté naturelle, sont forcés mais non pas obligés d’obéir.
Le meme cas arrive aussi quand les membres du Gouvernement usurpent séparément le pouvoir qu’ils ne doivent exercer qu’en corps; ce qui n’est pas une moindre infraction des loix, & produit encore un plus grand désordre. Alors on a, pour ainsi dire, autant de Princes que de Magistrats, & l’Etat, non moins divisé que le Gouvernement, périt ou change de forme.
Quand l’Etat se dissout, l’abus du Gouvernement quel qu’il soit prend le nom commun d’anarchie. En distingant, la Démocratie dégénere en Ochlocratie, l’Aristocratie en Olygarchie; j’ajoûterois que la Royauté dégénere en Tyrannie, mais ce dernier mot est équivoque & demande explication.
Dans le sens vulgaire un Tyran est un Roi qui gouverne avec violence & sans égard à la justice & aux loix. Dans le sens précis un Tyran est un particulier qui s’arroge l’autorité royale sans y avoir droit. C’est ainsi que les Grecs entendoient ce mot de Tyran: Ils le donnoient indifféremment aux bons & aux mauvais Princes dont l’autorité n’étoit pas légitime. Ainsi Tyran & usurpateur sont deux mots parfaitement synonimes.
Pour donner différens noms à différentes choses, j’appelle Tyran l’usurpateur de l’autorité royale, & Despote l’usurpateur du pouvoir Souverain. Le Tyran est celui qui s’ingere contre les loix à gouverner selon les loix; le Despote est celui qui se met au dessus des loix-mêmes. Ainsi le Tyran peut n’être pas Despote, mais le Despote est toujours Tyran.
Musean translation
Mouseia’s complete machine-assisted Musean translation, made directly from the complete French text of the 1762 edition, all four books and the appendix for fidelity, the author’s force and cadence, and modern clarity.
On the Abuse of Government and Its Tendency to Degenerate
As the particular will acts ceaselessly against the general will, so the government makes a continual effort against sovereignty. The greater this effort, the more the constitution deteriorates; and since no other corporate will here can resist and counterbalance the prince's will, sooner or later the prince must finally oppress the sovereign and break the social pact. This is the inherent and inevitable vice that, from the very birth of the body politic, works without respite to destroy it, just as old age and death finally destroy the human body.
There are two general ways in which a government degenerates: when it contracts, or when the state dissolves.
Government contracts when it passes from the greater number to the smaller, that is, from democracy to aristocracy and from aristocracy to kingship. This is its natural inclination. If it moved backward from the smaller number to the greater, one might say that it relaxed; but this reverse progression is impossible.
Indeed, a government never changes its form except when its worn-out spring leaves it too weak to preserve that form. If by spreading out it relaxed still further, its force would become altogether nil, and it would be even less able to endure. The spring must therefore be rewound and tightened as it gives way, or the state it supports will fall into ruin.
The dissolution of the state may occur in two ways.
First, when the prince ceases to administer the state according to the laws and usurps sovereign power. Then a remarkable change takes place: not the government, but the state contracts. I mean that the larger state dissolves and another forms within it, composed solely of the members of the government, which is now nothing to the rest of the people but their master and tyrant. Thus the moment the government usurps sovereignty, the social pact is broken, and all ordinary citizens, restored by right to their natural freedom, are forced, but not obliged, to obey.
The same thing happens when members of the government each usurp separately the power they ought to exercise only as a body; this is no lesser breach of the laws and produces even greater disorder. Then there are, so to speak, as many princes as magistrates, and the state, no less divided than the government, perishes or changes form.
When the state dissolves, abuse of government, whatever its nature, takes the common name of anarchy. To distinguish the cases: democracy degenerates into ochlocracy, aristocracy into oligarchy; I would add that kingship degenerates into tyranny, but this last word is ambiguous and needs explanation.
In ordinary usage, a tyrant is a king who governs by violence and without regard for justice or the laws. Strictly speaking, a tyrant is a private individual who arrogates royal authority to himself without any right to it. This is how the Greeks understood the word tyrant: they applied it without distinction to good and bad princes whose authority was illegitimate. Tyrant and usurper are thus perfectly synonymous.
To give different names to different things, I call the usurper of royal authority a tyrant and the usurper of sovereign power a despot. The tyrant intrudes, against the laws, to govern according to the laws; the despot sets himself above the laws themselves. Thus a tyrant may not be a despot, but a despot is always a tyrant.
Plain English translation
Mouseia’s complete Plain English edition, made independently and directly from the complete French text of the 1762 edition, all four books and the appendix.
The abuse of government and its tendency to decline.
Just as the particular will constantly works against the general will, the government constantly pushes against sovereignty. The stronger this pressure becomes, the more the constitution changes. Here no other will of a governing body stands against the prince's will to balance it. So sooner or later the prince must finally oppress the sovereign and break the social pact. This is the inherent and unavoidable flaw that works without rest to destroy the political body from the moment it is born, just as old age and death eventually destroy the human body.
There are two general ways a government declines: it becomes concentrated, or the state dissolves.
The government becomes concentrated when it passes from many hands to few: from democracy to aristocracy, and from aristocracy to kingship. This is its natural tendency. If it went backward from few hands to many, we could say it was growing weaker. But this movement in the opposite direction is impossible.
In fact, government changes form only when its driving force has worn down and become too weak to maintain its current form. If it weakened still more as it spread out, its strength would vanish altogether and it would be even less able to survive. So as this driving force gives way, we must wind it up and tighten it. Otherwise the state it supports will collapse.
The state can dissolve in two ways.
First, the prince may stop governing the state according to the laws and seize sovereign power. Then a remarkable change takes place. It is not the government that becomes concentrated, but the state. I mean that the large state dissolves, and another forms within it. The new state consists only of the members of the government. To the rest of the people it is now nothing but their master and tyrant. So as soon as the government seizes sovereignty, the social pact is broken. All ordinary citizens regain their natural freedom by right. They are forced to obey, but are under no obligation to do so.
The same thing also happens when government members individually seize power that they should exercise only together. This breaks the laws just as seriously and creates even greater disorder. Then, so to speak, there are as many princes as magistrates. The state is as divided as the government and either perishes or changes form.
When the state dissolves, abuse of government of any kind goes by the general name of anarchy. More precisely, democracy declines into mob rule, and aristocracy into oligarchy. I would add that kingship declines into tyranny. But this last word has more than one meaning and needs explanation.
In ordinary usage a tyrant is a king who rules violently without regard for justice or the laws. More precisely, a tyrant is a private individual who claims royal authority without any right to it. That is how the Greeks understood the word tyrant. They applied it equally to good and bad princes whose authority was not legitimate. Thus tyrant and usurper mean exactly the same thing.
To give different things different names, I call someone who seizes royal authority a tyrant and someone who seizes sovereign power a despot. A tyrant takes office against the laws but governs according to the laws. A despot sets himself above the laws themselves. Thus a tyrant may not be a despot, but a despot is always a tyrant.