2. Who is entitled to consult the Nation? If we had a constituted legislature,
each of its parts would have a right to do so, because recourse to
a judge is always open to a litigant or, rather, because anyone carrying out
142 Political Writings
someone else’s will is obliged to consult the author of the initial delegation
either to clarify the conditions of the trust or to communicate information
about circumstances that call for new powers. But we have been
without representatives for nearly two hundred years, always supposing
that this is what they were. Since we have none, who can stand in their
stead on behalf of the Nation? Who might be able to apprise the people
of the need for extraordinary representatives? The answer to the question
will be difficult only for those who give the word “convoke” a panoply
of English connotations. Here it is not a matter of a royal prerogative, but
of the natural and simple sense of the word “convoke.” The word encompasses
notice of a national need and an indication of a joint meeting
place. Now, when great issues of public safety bear down on every citizen,
is it likely that there will be much time wasted on finding out who
has the right to convoke? It is surely rather a matter of asking who does
not have the right? It is the sacred duty of everyone able to do anything.
This is all the more reason why it ought to be open to the executive
power to do so. It is much better placed than ordinary individuals to alert
the generality of citizens, and it is also able to indicate a meeting place
and eliminate all obstacles placed in its way by factional interest. It is also
certain that, in his quality as First Citizen, the Prince is more interested in
convoking the people than anyone else. If deciding upon the constitution
is not within his competence, it cannot be said that he does not have the
competence to bring such a decision about.