Johannes Althusius: Politica - Hubertlerch.com - HubertLerch.com

Althusius_0002
9/10/05 4:09 PM
fundamentalis regni). For under this law the universal association has been constituted in the realm. This law serves as the
foundation, so to speak, of the realm and is sustained by the common consent and approval of the members of the realm. By
this law all the members of the realm have been brought together under one head and united in one body. It is indeed called the
lodestone ( columna) of the realm.
This fundamental law is nothing other than certain covenants ( pacta) by which many cities and provinces come together and
agree to establish and defend one and the same commonwealth by common work, counsel, and aid. When common consent is
withdrawn from these covenants and stipulations, the commonwealth ceases to exist, unless these laws are rejected and
terminated by common consent, and new ones established, without harm to the commonwealth or impairment to its rights of
sovereignty. Lambert Daneau sets forth an important difference between these fundamental laws and the rights
of sovereignty.
20
A commonwealth or realm can be constituted and continue to endure, he says, without these fundamental laws.
But without rights of sovereignty no commonwealth can be established or, if already established, conserved and passed on to
posterity. …
[§ 70] The election of the supreme magistrate is in accord with either of two types. One is entirely free, and the other is
restricted to persons of a certain origin from whom the choice is to be made. For rulers are to be elected either from all persons
or from men of a certain kind, namely, from the nobility or from a certain family.
[§ 71] The entirely free election is one that rests upon the free choice of the ephors who do the electing.
21
[§ 72] In this
unrestricted election, it is allowed to change the earlier polity, or to annul it and to establish another and new one. For the
people, or body of the associated communities, retains for itself the free power to establish and change the commonwealth. The
people is not obligated to anyone concerning the succession and continuation of imperium and administration, but upon the death
of the last supreme magistrate as administrator of the commonwealth, it regains its authority ( jus) undiminished, which it can
transfer to any other person whatever according to its own preference.
22
[§ 73] However, an atheist, an impious or wicked
man, or one who is a stranger to true and orthodox religion should not be elected. Nor should a man from an ignoble or servile
station in life. Nor should a bastard, for reasons provided by Petrus Gregorius.
23
Nor should one who is given to drunkenness, or
inclined to vices and crimes. Nor should one who is unappreciative toward a good predecessor. But concerning the election of a
woman, see my earlier comments
24
as well as those later in this chapter.
There should be a regard for piety and virtue in the election to this indispensable office, however much at other times some men
have been elected because of wealth, as historical examples testify,
25
others because of force and might, others by plots and
stratagems, others by promises made and broken, and still others by lot. Such elections, however, are not without the consent of
the people, and they are rightly permitted when neither regard for piety and virtue, nor counsel concerning them, can be
exercised.
[§ 74] The restricted election is one that has been limited by the agreement of the people and realm, or universal association,
to persons of a certain origin. By established law, the right to be elected has been obtained for these persons, and it cannot later
be withdrawn or transferred to another against their will, without injury and violation of trust. [§ 75] And so in this election a
change in the polity once established and accepted by the people is not permitted to the ephors or to the people. The reason is
that the people has obligated itself to certain persons, to whom it promised to continue the administration of this polity, and
gave its word to them, which it is not later permitted to break. And this obligation passes over into the fundamental law of the
commonwealth. The right of succession even attaches itself to the descendants of the first supreme magistrate while still in the
loins of their parents, so far as they are not incapable of ruling because of defect or other disabilities. Therefore, they ought not
to be rejected and excluded from imperium. … This restricted election, which leads political theorists to refer to a successive
realm, is preferred by many to the free election.
26
For by this procedure every occasion is cut off for factions and conspiracies,
which the ambition to exercise domination often excites, and many perils are averted that would ordinarily happen in a time of
interregnum. The occurrence of much confusion and disturbance that accompanies an interregnum is also avoided, and imperium
is continued without interruption. When, however, the persons become extinct to whom this election is limited, then this
restricted election becomes a free one.
The restricted election, by which they call a realm hereditary or successive, is either of two kinds. It may be limited to a certain
nation and the nobles thereof, or to the heirs of the deceased supreme magistrate. [§ 76] In an election restricted to a certain
nation, it is permitted to elect a supreme magistrate only from those having their origin within the realm. So among the Jews it
http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/EBook.php?recordID=0002
Page 84 of 132