[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

from the bottom to the top to arrive at my goal. It would be sufficient for me to modify the economy
and change the arrangements.
Montesquieu: Will you explain?
Machiavelli: You have given me a course in constitutional politics; I aim to benefit from it. I am not,
moreover, as foreign as one generally believes in Europe to all these ideas about political balance: you
can perceive this in my Discourses on Titus Livy. But let us return to the deed. You rightly remarked
just a moment ago that, in the European parliamentary States, the public powers are distributed
practically everywhere, in the same manner, between a certain number of political bodies, the
regularized interaction of which constitute the government.
Thus one finds everywhere -- under diverse names, but with practically uniform assignations -- a
ministerial organization, a senate, a legislative body, a Council of State, and a court of cassation. I must
spare you from the useless development of the respective mechanisms of these powers, the secret[s] of
which you know better than I; it is obvious that each one corresponds with an essential function of the
government. You will remark that it is the function, not the institution, that I have called essential.
Thus, it would be necessary to have a ruling power, a moderating power, a legislative power and a
regulating power -- none of this is in doubt.
Montesquieu: But, if I understand you well, these diverse powers would, in your eyes, compose a
single power and you would give it all to a single man by suppressing the institutions.
Machiavelli: Once more, you are deceived. One could not act in such a fashion without danger. One
could not do it during your century and in your country, especially, given the fanaticism that reigns
there for what you call the principles of '89, but please listen to me well. In statics, the displacement of
a fulcrum can change the direction of force; in mechanics, the displacement of a spring can change
movement. But in appearances, everything remains the same. Likewise, in physiology, temperament
depends on the state of the organs. If the organs are modified, the temperament changes. So, the diverse
institutions of which we speak function in the governmental economy like real organs in the human
body. I would touch the organs, the organs would remain, but the political complexion of the State
would be changed. Can you understand this?
Montesquieu: This is not difficult and circumlocution is not necessary. You keep the names, and you
remove the things [they refer to].[2] This is what Augustus did in Rome when he destroyed the
Republic. There was still a consulate, a praetorship, a censor, a tribunal; but there were no consuls,
praetors, censors or tribunes.
Machiavelli: You must confess that one could have chosen worse models. Everything can be done in
politics on the condition that one flatters public prejudices and keeps respect for appearances intact.
Montesquieu: Do not return to generalities; get back to work, I am following you.
Machiavelli: Do not forget that my personal convictions would be the sources of each of my actions.
To my eyes, your parliamentary governments are only schools for dispute, homes for sterile agitation,
in the midst of which are exhausted the fecund activities of the nations that the grandstand and the press
condemn to powerlessness. Consequently, I would not have remorse; I would begin from an elevated
point of view and my goals justify my actions.
For abstract theories, I would substitute practical reason, the experiences of the centuries, the examples
of men of genius who have done great things by the same means; I would begin by returning to power
its vital conditions.
My first reform would immediately focus upon your so-called ministerial responsibility. In the
centralized countries -- such as yours, for example, where public opinion, through an instinctive
sentiment, yields up everything to the Chief of State, the good as well as the bad -- to inscribe at the top
of the charter the idea that the sovereign is not responsible, this is to lie to the public sentiment, this is
to establish a fiction that always vanishes in the noise of revolution. [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]