The Second
Treatise of Government,
Chapter 10:
Of the Forms of a Common-wealth
John Locke
1690
Sect. 132. THE majority having, as has
been shewed, upon men's first uniting into society, the whole power of the
community naturally in them, may employ all that power in making laws for
the community from time to time, and executing those laws by officers of
their own appointing; and then the form of the government is a
perfect democracy: or else may put the power of making laws into
the hands of a few select men, and their heirs or successors; and then it
is an oligarchy: or else into the hands of one man, and then it is
a monarchy: if to him and his heirs, it is an hereditary
monarchy: if to him only for life, but upon his death the power only
of nominating a successor to return to them; an elective monarchy.
And so accordingly of these the community may make compounded and mixed
forms of government, as they think good. And if the legislative power be
at first given by the majority to one or more persons only for their
lives, or any limited time, and then the supreme power to revert to them
again; when it is so reverted, the community may dispose of it again anew
into what hands they please, and so constitute a new form of government:
for the form of government depending upon the placing the supreme
power, which is the legislative, it being impossible to conceive
that an inferior power should prescribe to a superior, or any but the
supreme make laws, according as the power of making laws is placed, such
is the form of the common-wealth.
Sect. 133. By common-wealth, I must
be understood all along to mean, not a democracy, or any form of
government, but any independent community, which the Latines
signified by the word civitas, to which the word which best answers
in our language, is common-wealth, and most properly expresses such
a society of men, which community or city in English does not; for
there may be subordinate communities in a government; and city amongst us
has a quite different notion from common-wealth: and therefore, to avoid
ambiguity, I crave leave to use the word common-wealth in that
sense, in which I find it used by King James the first; and I take
it to be its genuine signification; which if any body dislike, I consent
with him to change it for a better.
|