Book III, Chapter 13

Continuation.

It is not enough that the assembled people should once have fixed the constitution of the state by giving its sanction to a body of laws; it is not enough that it should have established a perpetual government or provided once and for all for the election of magistrates. Besides the extraordinary assemblies that unforeseen circumstances may require, there must be fixed, periodic assemblies that nothing can abolish or postpone, so that on the appointed day the people are lawfully convened by the law itself, without any need for another formal summons.

But apart from these assemblies, whose date alone gives them legal standing, every assembly of the people not called by the magistrates appointed for that purpose, and in the prescribed forms, must be held illegitimate and everything done there null; for the very order to assemble must emanate from the law.

As for how often lawful assemblies should recur, this depends on so many considerations that no precise rules can be given. One can say only, in general, that the stronger the government, the more frequently the sovereign must appear.

This, I shall be told, may work for a single city; but what is to be done when the state contains several? Is sovereign authority to be divided, or must it be concentrated in one city and all the rest subjected to it?

I answer that neither course should be taken. First, sovereign authority is simple and one, and cannot be divided without being destroyed. Second, a city, no more than a nation, can legitimately be subject to another, because the essence of the body politic lies in the union of obedience and freedom, and the words subject and sovereign name correlative aspects of the same thing, united in the single word citizen.

I answer further that it is always an evil to unite several towns into a single city, and that anyone intent on such a union should not flatter himself that he can escape its natural disadvantages. One should not cite the abuses of large states against someone who wants only small ones; but how can small states be given strength enough to resist the great? As the Greek cities once resisted the Great King, and as, more recently, Holland and Switzerland resisted the house of Austria.

Yet if the state cannot be brought within proper bounds, one resource remains: allow it no capital, have the government sit in each city in turn, and assemble the estates of the country there in turn as well.

People the territory evenly, extend the same rights throughout it, carry abundance and life everywhere: thus the state will become at once as strong and as well governed as it can be. Remember that the walls of cities are built only from the ruins of houses in the countryside. For every palace I see rise in the capital, I seem to see an entire country reduced to ruins.

Continued.

It is not enough for the assembled people to have established the state's constitution once by approving a body of laws. Nor is it enough for them to have set up a permanent government or arranged the election of magistrates once and for all. Besides the extraordinary assemblies that unforeseen events may require, there must be regular, periodic assemblies that nothing can abolish or postpone. On the appointed day, the law itself must legitimately convene the people, without any further formal summons.

But apart from assemblies made lawful by their scheduled date alone, any assembly of the people that has not been called by the magistrates appointed for that purpose, according to the prescribed procedures, must be considered illegitimate. Everything done there must be considered void, because even the order to assemble must come from the law.

How often legitimate assemblies should meet depends on so many factors that no precise rules can be given. In general, though, the stronger the government, the more often the sovereign must make its presence felt.

This may be fine for a single city, someone will tell me. But what should be done when a state contains several? Should sovereign authority be divided, or should it be concentrated in one city and all the others subjected to it?

My answer is that neither should be done. First, sovereign authority is single and indivisible. It cannot be divided without being destroyed. Second, a city, no more than a nation, can legitimately be the subject of another. The political body's very nature lies in the agreement of obedience with freedom. The words subject and sovereign refer to two related aspects of the same thing, brought together in the single word citizen.

I also answer that joining several towns into one city-state is always a bad thing. Anyone determined to make such a union should not imagine they can avoid its natural drawbacks. Those who want only small states should not be confronted with the abuses of large ones. But how can small states be given enough strength to withstand large ones? In the way the Greek cities once resisted the Great King, and the way Holland and Switzerland more recently resisted the House of Austria.

Still, if the state cannot be brought within reasonable limits, one option remains. It should have no capital. The government should sit in each city in turn, and the assemblies of the country should also meet in each city in turn.

Spread the population evenly across the territory. Give people the same rights everywhere. Bring plenty and life to every part of it. That is how the state can become both as strong and as well governed as possible. Remember that city walls are built only from the ruins of country homes. Whenever I see a palace going up in the capital, I feel as though I am watching a whole region fall into ruin.