On the Eligibility of Deputies for Re-election

16 May 1791

(Translation by Nicola Armitt)

Sirs,
The greatest legislators of Antiquity, having given their countries a Constitution, returned then to the masses, casting off their laurels even at the very moment of public recognition.
They thought that the respect for the new laws depended greatly on the feelings that the legislators themselves inspired and this is mainly connected to the idea of the legislators’ characters and impartiality.
At the very least, those who establish the destiny of nations and the future of races should be completely isolated from their work. They should rather be as the whole Nation, as posterity itself. It is not even sufficient for them to be exempt from all personal thoughts and ambitions; they must also be above all suspicion.
For my part, I swear that I have no need of subtle reasoning to find a solution to this problem that I now put to you. I find the solution in principals of honesty and in my own conscience.

We debate that section of the Constitution that forms the first basis of liberty and public happiness - the organisation of the governing body and the rules for the elections to renew this body.
Before addressing these issues we need to distance ourselves from them: I, myself, believe that I can accept this.
In essence I guess that I would not be immune from all ambition or the wish to be a member of the government and I declare frankly that it is perhaps the only thing that can excite ambition in a free man. I guess too that opportunities that would allow me this kind of work would be found in the manner by which these great national questions are resolved. Could I remain impartial and disinterested in the way that this important task demands?

If a judge excuses himself from his duties due to a prejudicial interest in a case, should I be less severe to myself for the sake of the people? No. And, since there exists for all men one moral sense and one conscience, I conclude that this opinion is shared by the entire Assembly.

It is in the very nature of things that barriers are broken down between the authors of the Constitution and the assemblies that come after them. It is a fact in politics that nothing is useful that isn’t also just and honest. Nothing proves this better than this maxim, and the advantages attached to it, that I propose.
Can you conceive what authority you would give your Constitution by this sacrifice, pronounced by yourselves, that the citizens would demand of you?

All efforts at slander would be useless and weak because none of those in office could be accused of having profited from an earlier position. Also it could not be said that they were the same people who had exercised great influence on any deliberations solely to improve their own reputation and standing, extending their personal empires through the work of the Assembly. In the end no one could be suspected of having the desire, commendable in itself, of serving the country but only for selfish purposes. It rests with us to put such principals into action.

If however, being incapable of attempts for personal gain, they were to attach themselves to a contrary system due to misgivings concerning public interest, it seems to me that it would be easy to disperse them.

Several people seem to believe in the necessity of conserving, within the next governing body, some of the current members because of their confidence in them. They despair of finding replacements of equal dignity who would also enjoy the same public confidence. In examining the sentiment, honourable as it is, that form the basis of this opinion, I believe it should be made cleared that we have no right to presume anything. In a nation of 25 million free and enlightened men would we really be powerless to find 720 worthy defenders.

And, if in a time when public spirit was not yet born and the Nation ignored its rights and could not see its destiny, dignified choices could be made for the revolution, will things not be better still when the public are enlightened and fortified with two years of experience; enriched with great lessons and deeds?

Those in favour of re-election still maintain that a number of current members need to continue on in order to enlighten and guide the new government with their wealth of experience and perfect knowledge of the laws that they themselves have implemented.

Putting aside for a moment this idea that may even be specious. I think any citizens outside this assembly who have followed our work, adopted and defended our decrees and have been charged by the public to execute them must be worthy of the high regard of their compatriots. Such citizens are filled with the light and sense of citizenship and know the laws and the Constitution. I believe that knowing laws is no different from obeying them. I might also add that, in this whirlpool of affairs in which we find ourselves, details of all our operations have been readily communicated to the People. Besides all this even, the principals of our Constitution are engraved in the very hearts of all men and in the spirit of most of the French People. It is not only from the mind of this or that orator but from the very heart of public opinion that proceeded and supports us.

It is to the will of the People that we must entrust the continuation and perfection of our work and not to the influence of those who represent it at any one time.

It is not the citizens themselves that should judge affairs for the defence of their country against her enemies? It is not the work of the Nation who adopted the Constitution? Do the Nation’s chosen representatives not deserve our confidence? And then who would dare overthrow the Constitution against the will of the People?

As for the so-called guidelines that an Assembly could offer to those who follow. I do not believe that they are in any way useful. It is not in the ascendancy of particular speakers that the hope of the People must be placed but in the enlightened citizenship of the masses. The influence of public opinion and general interest diminishes in proportion with that taken by the orators and, if they succeed in controlling all resolutions, there is no longer either a true Assembly or even the ghost of fair representation.

Let us bear in mind the words of Themistocle upon beholding his newborn son. He said, “Here is the one who will govern Greece. This kid will govern his mother, his mother will govern me, I govern the Athenians and the Athenians govern Greece.” In this way a nation of 25 million would be governed by the Assembly, the Assembly would be governed by a number of skilled speakers but who would govern those speakers? I will not risk saying it, but we could easily guess the answer to that question.

I am not at all in favour of the new science referred to as ‘tactics of the great assemblies.” It seems too involved with intrigues when truth and reason alone should reign in a legislative assembly.

I do not like the fact that, by these means, cunning men could dominate an assembly and, in so doing, perpetuate a coalition; the curse of liberty.

I have confidence in representatives who, restricted to two years of power, would be forced to concentrate solely on the glory of serving their country and humanity. In this way they would merit the esteem and love of the citizens, to whose bosom they will return at the end of their mission.

Two years of work, both brilliant and useful, should give enough personal glory but if the glory of placing their names amongst those of benefactors to the country is not enough then they are corrupted, and possibly even dangerous, men. They must guard themselves against this weakness and look to follow other ambitions instead.

I would distrust any who, after four years, remain seduced by their own power and give in to temptations of pride or greed. In such a case those who represent me and whose will should be my own, would be far from me and identify themselves neither with me or with the laws. Government would then be nothing more than an expression of our own caprices, based on the interests of an ambitious few. The representatives would be against the People and the Court would become first sovereign then oppressor.

So let us hear no more of opposition to re-election as a violation of public liberty. Is it a violation of liberty to establish forms and rules so that the elections will benefit liberty? Have not all adopted these means? Have not they also forbidden re-election to important judicial offices to prevent ambitious men from rising thanks to intrigues and the unsuspecting aid of the People? Have not you yourselves determined the criteria for eligibility? Have those in favour of re-election now declared themselves against these very decrees?

In that case we must accuse ourselves of not having believed in unlimited liberty when it pertains to ourselves and of not having these qualms when public interest demanded earlier the most beneficial rules.

Without doubt all unjust restrictions, contrary to the rights of men, which do not enhance equality are attacks against the liberty of the People. Are not all wise and necessary precautions to protect liberty from intrigues and the abuse of power commanded as much by love as by the sense of liberty itself?

And besides, is it not in the name of the People that these laws are made? It is not a good idea to think of presenting decrees in the manner of the laws once dictated by a sovereign to the subjects. It is the Nation who offers these decrees, through the work of its representatives.

As soon as laws are just and conform to all rights they are always legitimate.

Who now could doubt that the Nation could not use the rules that she follows in elections to defend herself against error and surprise attack?

Moreover, aside from that which directly concerns the Assembly, I have proven that it is useful to reject ideas of re-election. I have shown an incompatibility founded on the very nature of the rights on man. As it seems appropriate to really insist on a question such as this, I will add still further reasons to my argument against re-election.

I offer a reason as simple as it is decisive. What assembly in the world could better demonstrate what I suggest than one that has lasted two years, supported by works and actions, the immensity of which seem beyond the power of mere mortals? A moment comes though when weakness and fatigue threaten and we must resort to the soul and to great thoughts for the will to continue. When that moment arrives we are weighed down with the burden of the destiny of a Nation for another two years.

Thus we must send nature and reason to repose in the interest of the public if not for ourselves. Neither ambition nor zeal has the right to contradict this.
So like athletes, victorious but tired, we will leave the course of events to our successors. These men, fresh and vigorous, will walk in out footsteps under the watchful eye of the Nation and ourselves, who will guard against betrayal.

And what of us? Detached from the government we will serve our country all the better in staying closer to her heart. Spread throughout the land we will offer enlightenment to those citizens who have need of it and we will uphold and propagate public spirit, love of peace, love of order and love of laws and liberty.

There you have it. In this moment we find our greatest dignity and our greatest use as we show our fellow citizens that all our zealous work is on their behalf. Nothing fills peoples’ souls of forms public morals like the virtues seen in the legislators.

Give your fellow citizens an example of your love of equality and your exclusive interest in the happiness of your country. Give the same to your successors, to those destined to influence nations.
The People will judge your careers by the manner in which you end them and they will see you made still purer, still greater and more dignified through their confidence in you.

I would hope that this would be agreeable to those who believe they have pretensions founded in honours of government. If they march always on a path towards public goodness and liberty there is nothing more for them to wish for. If someone should aspire to more or greater advantages then it would be reason enough for them to forget about a career in government, where ambition would smash him upon the rocks.

Furthermore I think that all the resources of eloquence and dialectic would be worthless in any attempts to obscure the truth of a sentiment, not to mention the good sense discovered in all honest men. And if it is easy in general to withhold an opinion due to reasons more or less fallacious, it is less dangerous on occasion to see with an attentive eye that personal interest could pierce the very heart of the People and their liberty.

I also wish to discern the same obstacles for a proposition that, by its nature, seems to call for a prompt and general agreement but it should be tested, as I believe that that would be necessary in the interests of the nation and in connection with the glory of the representatives. I do not hesitate to demand permission to speak and such permission has never been refused before. I wish merely to offer a response to any objections that may arise regarding my motion.

I wish to offer an honest declaration, which has brought me to the conclusion that the opinion that I hold, and to which I am attached, is true and just. It is at the same time both liveliness of efforts and weakness in the opposition’s reasoning that hold at bay the spirits on contrary systems. There is this worrying curiosity with which one interrogates particular opinions, these clever insinuations and these propositions, whispered to discredit in advance those of whom one has taken offence to in the belief that only enemies of liberty could uphold the opinions that they do. This art of filling spirits with terror through words of anarchy, these worries, these movements, these coalitions.

I see that this system reduces itself to a cowardly idea when it is false and unjust to the Nation to see the revolution attached solely to certain individuals and I say that truth and reason do not fight with such arms and do mot make use of such methods.

I believe that it is important to destroy the reason for all these agitations. It seems to me that, in a time when we should all unite our powers to end our work in a prompt and reflective manner, it would be a great pity if enlightened men were divided amongst themselves when they could pass power onto those in follow at the approaching elections.

What a scandal it would be if those who made laws against intrigue could be accused of it themselves. And no matter what is done to end such talk, unfounded without a doubt, it is already spread and accredited.

One final word will suffice, and then we will make our decisions regarding the power of the legislators and the manner in which they are elected. We proceed with this important work, not as men destined to be part of the government but as men who will be simple citizens once more.

The most obvious way to show the entire Nation and ourselves that we are of one spirit is to place ourselves in the same condition and position as the People. We must therefore decide before all else this issue that concerns all current members of the Assembly.
I ask that it be decreed that members of the current assembly cannot be elected to the next.