Local society since 1830.
I. Introduction of Universal suffrage.
Local society since 1830. - Introduction of a new internal motor. -Subordinate to the external motor. - Advantageous under the system of universal suffrage.
Neither lips nor heart are capable of pronouncing the above invigorating and conclusive phrase after a silence of 30 years. That local society ought to be a private association， does not interest those who are concerned， while the legislator does not permit it.
Indeed， after the year VIII (1799)， the State (Napoleon) introduces into the machine the new motivation described above. After the revolution of 1830，[1] the municipal and general councilors become elective and are appointed by a limited suffrage； after the revolution of 1848， they are elected by universal suffrage.[2] After the revolution of 1870，[3] each municipal council elects its own mayor， while the council-general， whose powers are enlarged， leaves in its place， during its vacations， a standing committee who arrange with， and govern along with， the prefect. Here， in local society， is a superadded internal motor， working from below， whilst the first one is external and works from above； from now on， both are to work together and in accord. - But， in reality， the second (the council-general)remains subordinate； moreover， it does not suit the machine[4] and the machine does not suit it； it is only a superfluity， an inconvenient and cumbersome intruder， nearly always useless， and often mischievous.
Its influence is feeble and of little effect； too many brakes are attached to it； its force diminishes through the complexity of its numerous wheels； it fails in giving action； it cannot but little more than impede or moderate other impulses， those of the external motor， sometimes as it should， and sometimes the contrary. Most frequently， even nowadays (1889)， it is of no efficiency whatever. Three-quarters of the municipal councils， for three-fourths of their business， hold sessions only to give signatures. Their pretended deliberations are simply a parade formality； the incentive and direction continue to come from without， and from above； under the third Republic， as under the Restoration and the first Empire， it is always the central State which governs the local society； amid all the wrangling and disputes， in spite of passing conflicts it is， and remains， the initiator， mover， leader， controller， accountant， and executor of every undertaking， the preponderating power in the department as well as in the commune， and with what deplorable results we all know. - There is still another and more serious result. Nowadays， its interference is an advantage， for should it renounce its preponderance this would pass over to the other power which， since this has become vested in a numerical majority， is mere blind and brutal force； abandoned to itself and without any counter-weight， its ascendancy would be disastrous， we would see reappearing along with the blunders of 1789， the outrages， usurpations， and distress of 1790， 1791 and 1792.[5] -In any event， there is this advantage in despotic centralization， that it still preserves us from democratic autonomy. In the present state of institutions and minds， the former system， objectionable as it may be， is our last retreat against the greater evil of the latter.
II. Universal suffrage.
Application of universal suffrage to local society. - Two assessments for the expenses of local society. - The fixed amount of one should in equity be equal to the average sum of the other. - Practically， the sum of one is kept too low. - How the new régime provides for local expenditure. - The "additional centimes." - How the small taxpayer is relieved in town and country. - His quota in local expenditure reduced to the minimum. - His quota of local benefits remains intact. - Hence the large or average taxpayer bears， beside his own burden， that of the relieved small taxpayer. - Number of those relieved. - The extra burden of the large and average taxpayer is alms-giving. - The relief of the small taxpayer is a levy of alms.
In effect， direct universal suffrage， counted by heads， is in local society a discordant element， a monstrous system， to which it is adverse. Constituted as this is， not by human judgment， but by the preponderance of numbers and their force， its mechanism is determined beforehand； it excludes certain wheels and connections.[6] That is why the legislator must write laws which reflect the nature of our existence， or， at least， translate this as closely as he can， without any gross contradiction. Nature herself presents him with ready-made statutes.[7] His business is to read these properly； he has already transcribed the apportionment of burdens； he can now transcribe the apportionment of rights.