How far a people is able and worthy to form a State, (8) The cannot in the imperfect condition of international law be verdict of history. decided by any human judgment, but only by the judgment of God as revealed in the history of the world. As a rule it is only by great struggles, by its own sufferings and its own acts, that a nation can justify its claim. as the em Nation If the State is to fulfil its part as the embodiment of the The State nation, it is plain that its laws and institutions must have bodiment regard to the capacities and needs of the nation, in a word, of the it must be popular (volksthümlich). A constitution which disregards the peculiar character of the nation, and which does not correspond with its spirit and thought, is an unnatural and incapable body. If it is forced upon a people by a foreign power, or if, as we have seen before now, in times of great political fever, it has been chosen by the disordered and misguided nation, it collapses again as soon as ever that power slackens or the nation recovers its reason. In either case, however, the damage to the political organism is so serious that it may result in the fall of the nation, and at least cripples its vigour for a long time. Every great people which is fit to become a nation and a State, has its own political point of view and its own special function as a State, and this cannot be fulfilled unless the nation gives to the State the impress of its own character. This is what is meant by the natural right of a nation to a national constitution (volksthümliche Verfassung). Thus the diversity of constitutions corresponds to the diversity of gifts with which nations and peoples are endowed by God. But it may well be that the peculiar character of a nation is must grow not mirrored, once for all, in the State. A nation outlives the with its growth. changing phases of its development, and although it remains essentially the same, yet its needs and its views alter with the periods of its life. A national and popular State adapts its organism to the continual development of the nation, but without completely losing its identity. The Roman State through all its varied changes reveals the character of the Roman people. The monarchy, the republic, the empire correspond to the different stages in the life of the people, but in all we see the distinctive impress of Rome. The English monarchy of the Tudors differed from that of the house of Hanover, because the nation developed between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. This is what is meant by the natural right of a nation to adapt its constitution to the time. To sum up: a State is natural if its form, at any time, corresponds to the peculiar character and period of development of the nation embodied in it. Notes.-1. Cato in Cic. de Rep. ii. 21: Nec temporis unius nec hominis est constitutio reipublicae.' 2. Frederick the Great, Anti-Machiavel 12: 'Tout est varié dans l'univers: les tempéraments des hommes sont différents, et la nature établit la même variété, si j'ose m'exprimer ainsi, dans le tempérament des États. J'entends en général par le tempérament d'un État sa situation, son étendue, le nombre et le génie de ses peuples, son commerce, ses coutumes, ses lois, son fort, son faible, ses richesses et ses ressources.' 3. De Maistre, Considérations sur la France, ch. 6: 'Mais une constitution qui est faite pour toutes les nations, n'est faite pour aucune; c'est une pure abstraction, une œuvre scholastique faite pour exercer l'esprit d'après une hypothèse idéale, et qu'il faut adresser à l'homme, dans les espaces imaginaires où il habite.' 4. Napoleon to the Swiss (1803): 'Une forme de gouvernement qui n'est pas le résultat d'une longue suite d'événements, de malheurs, d'efforts et d'entreprises de la part d'un peuple, ne prendra jamais racine.' 5. Sismondi, Études sur la Constitution des peuples libres: 'La Constitution comprend toutes les habitudes d'une nation, ses affections, ses souvenirs, les besoins de son imagination, tout aussi bien que ses lois. . . . Aussi rien n'indique un esprit plus superficiel et plus faux en même temps, que l'entreprise de transplanter la Constitution d'un pays dans un autre, ou celle de donner une constitution nouvelle à un peuple, non d'après son propre génie ou sa propre histoire, mais d'après quelques règles générales qu'on a décorées du nom de principes. Le dernier demi-siècle, qui a vu naître tant de ces Constitutions d'emprunt, peut aussi rendre témoignage qu'il n'y en a pas une seule qui a répondu ou aux vues de l'auteur, ou aux espérances de ceux qui l'acceptèrent.' (Introduction, p. 38). 6. L. Ranke (Zeitschr. i. 91): 'Our theory is that every nation has a policy of its own. But what is the meaning of this principle of national independence (Nationalunabhängigkeit) which penetrates all spirits? Is it merely that no foreign judge must sit in our cities, and no foreign troops march through our land? Is it not rather this, that we must develope our own mental powers, independently of others, to the full extent of which they are capable?' CHAPTER V. F SOCIETY. RENCH political theorists, especially since Rousseau, have been inclined to regard the State as a Society, and to identify the conceptions of Nation' (nation) and ' People' (peuple) with that of Society. Hence the science of the State has been confused, and political practice has also suffered. German political theory distinguishes more sharply between the different conceptions, and so saves many mistakes. It gives the State a firmer basis and a more secure operation, and protects society against the tyranny of the State. (1) to and State; The Nation (Volk) is a necessarily connected whole, while Relation of Society is a casual association of a number of individuals. Society The Nation as embodied in the State is an organism, with Nation head and members; Society is an unorganised mass of individuals. The Nation has a legal personality (ist eine Rechtsperson), Society has no collective personality, but only consists of a mass of private persons. The Nation is endowed with unity of will, and the power to make its will actual in the State. Society has no collective will, and no political power of its own. Society can neither legislate nor govern, nor administer justice. It has only a public opinion, and exercises an indirect influence on the organs of the State, according to the views, interests, and demands of many or all of its members. The Nation is a political idea: Society is only the shifting association of private persons within the domain of the State. No doubt a Nation and a Society, consisting of the same men, interact in many and intimate ways. The State lays down the law for Society: it protects it and furthers its (2) to People. Gneist's interests in many ways. On the other hand, Society supports the State with its economic and intellectual resources. If the Society suffers, the State suffers with it: while a healthy, beneficent, and cultivated Society strengthens the State, and is the condition of its welfare. The But there is not always entire harmony between the State and Society. Sometimes Society, with an eye to its own special interests, or guided by chopping winds of public opinion, makes demands on the State, which it is obliged to reject as unjust or injudicious. Sometimes the State claims of Society services and sacrifices which it is loth to undertake. permanent security of the State clashes at times with the interests and desires of the moment. From time to time Society suffers from disorders, which can best be relieved by the State, and defects appear in the constitution or administration of the State, the removal of which stirs Society to its depths. One of the main problems of public law and of politics is to reconcile this opposition, justly and judiciously. The conceptions of People (Nation) and Society also are related, but not identical. Compared with a hereditary People, Society appears a shifting conglomeration of individuals. A People has created in its language an organic expression of its common spirit, and Society makes use of the national language, so far as it finds it convenient, but has no language peculiar to itself as a Society. A People may branch off into different States: we limit our conception of a Society to the inhabitants of one State or if we speak e. g. of European Society, we include the inhabitants of all civilised European States, notwithstanding that they belong to different peoples. Within the State, too, the idea of Society is independent of differences of nationality, including all who are living in the State. A People seems to have a natural organisation of its own, at least on the physical side: a Society is only a sum of individual men. Gneist has done a service to political science by accentuIndustry.' ating the difference between 'State' and 'Society,' and calling attention to the friction between them. But his de signation of modern society as society as a Society of Industry (Erwerbsgesellschaft) seems too narrow. Certainly the acquisition of wealth is one of the strongest and most widereaching interests of Society, but still not the only one, nor the most important. Society has regard to the enjoyment of wealth as well as to its acquisition: further, it attaches a high value to family life, apart from all considerations of wealth. It values sociability, and has a lively interest in culture, literature and art. To lay stress on the acquisition of wealth, in defining Society, is to make it too material and selfish, and to ignore its efforts after ideals and a common good. The numerous institutions for the poor and sick, for science and art, voluntarily founded and richly endowed by Society, without any compulsion from the State, are sufficient confirmation of the truth of this position. |