Attempts are made, now-a-days, to fill in the blank made by the centralization of the primitive system and the Revolution,by founding trades' unions: but these have no feeling of brotherhood or religion, no tradition and no juridical principles; toooften they are merely aggressive associations for maintaining a struggle with the capitalists. At the risk of being thought"reactionary," the author has no hesitation in asserting that two institutions formerly existed, which should have beenpreserved and improved as the foundation of modern democracy, -- viz. communal autonomy, and communal property.
Politicians have striven to destroy the former, and economists to banish the latter; but it is an immense mistake, and willeverywhere hinder the establishment of democratic institutions, at any rate until a remedy is devised.
If in any country these institutions have been preserved, and, at the same time, liberty, equality and order have beenmaintained for centuries, we are induced to think that these facts are connected as cause and effect; and it may be useful tostudy under what conditions the country has enjoyed these rare advantages. The remarkable point is that these institutionsexisted among all nations originally; but in almost every case they have been destroyed or radically modified with the lapseof time. In Russia alone the property of the commune has been preserved, although the nobility, created in the sixteenthcentury, deprived it of half its possessions, and reduced the inhabitants to serfage. In France feudalism depressed thecommunes, but did not destroy them; it was reserved for royal despotism and the subsequent passion for uniformity at thetime of the French revolution, to deal their death-blow. In Germany the commune was mutilated by the nobility and byadministrative centralization. In England, by a strange contrast, while the towns preserved all their liberties and obtained avoice in the lower House, the rural commune was consumed by the manor, so that no vestige remains, except in theecclesiastical element, the vestry or parish. Hence arose the profound degradation of the agricultural labourer, who is onlynow awakening to enter on a struggle with his employers.
There has never been a more radical democracy than that which has existed for a thousand years in Switzerland; itsapplication in a more absolute form cannot even be conceived. In the cantons of Uri, Schwytz, Glaris, in the Appenzells, andin the two Unterwaldens, the people govern themselves directly, without any intermediate representative body. In the spring,all the citizens of full age meet in a single assembly, in the open air, to pass laws and to nominate the officers charged withtheir execution. This is the old "May Field" of the Germans, where all the warriors assembled in arms, and expressed theirdecision by the wapentak , or clash of arms. To the present day, the inhabitants of the outer Rhodes (2) of Appenzell come tothe general assembly, one year at Hundwyl and the other at Trogen, each carrying in his hand an old sword or ancient rapierof the middle ages, which forms a quaint contrast with their black clothes and family umbrella. These assemblies are called landesgemeinde , that is "national commune," a strictly precise term, implying that the whole country forms, so to say, asingle commune. This was the case originally. Historical documents shew us, in the early part of the middle ages, Germantribes occupying, one the territory of Unterwalden, another that of Uri, and the third that of Schwytz, as undivided marks.
Later, as different villages were formed, they constituted separate autonomic communes; but the great commune of thecanton with the general assembly of all the inhabitants, the landesgemeinde , was maintained. We find, therefore, a form ofgovernment perfectly free and democratic. This absolute self-government, dating from the most remote times, has beentransmitted uninterruptedly to the present day. Nations did not start with patriarchal royalty, as has often been asserted froman exclusive study of heroic Greece, but rather with republican institutions. Madame de Stael was right. Liberty is ancient,despotism modern.
Direct government, which Rousseau considered no longer possible, can subsist in the primitive cantons, partly because theterritory is very small, and also because the duties of legislation are reduced to a very small compass. Most kinds of businessare carried on in the commune. Foreign relations are the province of the confederation. The manner of life is simple, andcustom still exercises a considerable empire. Accordingly there are but few laws to be made. The landamman presents themto the assembly, every citizen having the right of initiative or amendment. The discussions are at times very animated, andeven violent; but an early division is demanded, as every one is anxious to get home again. The abuse of parliamentarianism,the peculiar curse of States governed on the representative system, is thus avoided.
