Maximilien Robespierre Report on the rules of revolutionary governments

RxxCCeTMpI2pQ1

Obraz przedstawia portret Maximiliena Robespierra.

The theory of government is as new as revolution that brought it. We shouldn’t look for it in the books of political writers who never foresaw this revolution, nor in the acts of tyrants who, content with abusing their power, don’t bother with justifying their legality; these words for the aristocracy are just a matter of fear or a text that slanders the,; for tyrants, these words are just a scandal, whereas for many people they are simply a mystery; therefore it should be explained to everyone, so that good citizens could be attracted, for the sake of public interest. The function of the government is to direct moral and physical forces of the nation to achieve the goal for which the government was formed. The goal of the constitutional government is to retain the Republic; the goal of the revolutionary government is to establish a Republic. The revolution is the war of freedom with its enemies; The Constitution is a system of the victorious and calm freedom. The revolutionary government needs extraordinary actions, because he is fighting a war. It is subjected to less uniform and strict rules, because the circumstances the government finds itself it are turbulent and changeable, mainly because of this it is forced to constantly develop new methods of action towards new, sudden threats. A constitutional government is focused mainly on civil freedom, whereas the revolutionary government focuses mainly on public freedom. With constitutional government it is enough to almost protect the individuals from the abuse of public authority; in the case of the revolutionary government, the very public authority is forced to protect itself from all the enemies attacking it. The revolutionary government owes the good citizens every type of country protection; the enemies of the people are owed only death.

robespierre Source: Maximilien Robespierre, Report on the rules of revolutionary governments, oprac. Tadeusz Zawadzki, tłum. Halina Lubicz-Trawkowska.

Declaration of human and civic rights (fragment)

Declaration of human and civic rights (fragment)

Art. 1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be based only on considerations of the common good.

Art. 2. The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of Man. These rights are Liberty, Property, Safety and Resistance to Oppression.

Art. 3. The principle of any Sovereignty lies primarily in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it.

Art. 4. Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law.

Art. 5. The Law has the right to forbid only those actions that are injurious to society. Nothing that is not forbidden by Law may be hindered, and no one may be compelled to do what the Law does not ordain.

Art. 6. The Law is the expression of the general will. All citizens have the right to take part, personally or through their representatives, in its making. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in its eyes, shall be equally eligible to all high offices, public positions and employments, according to their ability, and without other distinction than that of their virtues and talents.

deklaracja Source: Declaration of human and civic rights (fragment), oprac. Grzegorz Chomicki, Leszek Śliwa, Kraków 2001, s. 29–31.

Katarzyna Sójka-Zielińska Natural law

In the area of philosophical and moral notions there is no homogeneous and unchangeable canon of rules. The notions of good, legitimacy, justice can be interpreted by anyone as they wish. Throughout thousands of years of civilization, the natural law, which has to be emphasized especially today, when it is so easy and so popular to abuse this notion, was used to justify radically different approaches. The inherent equality and inequality of men could be considered as natural law. Freedom of an individual could be understood as the need of that individual to completely subject to the group. Private property was considered natural law, whereas for others, natural and primary law was the collective (group) property.

prawo Source: Katarzyna Sójka-Zielińska, Natural law, Wrocław 2000, s. 55.