One need only cast a glance at the Southern States of America, tobe convinced that democratic forms of government among people whoare not ripe for them can become the cause of decidedretrogression.in public prosperity.One need only look at Russia,to perceive that people who are yet in a low degree of civilisationare capable of making most remarkable progress in their nationalwell-being under an absolute monarchy.But that in no way provesthat people have become rich, i.e.have attained the highest degreeof economical well-being, under all forms of government.Historyrather teaches us that such a degree of public well-being, namely,a flourishing state of manufactures and commerce, has been attainedin those countries only whose political constitution (whether itbear the name of democratic or aristocratic republic, or limitedmonarchy) has secured to their inhabitants a high degree ofpersonal liberty and of security of property whose administrationhas guaranteed to them a high degree of activity and powersuccessfully to strive for the attainment of their common objects,and of steady continuity in those endeavours.For in a state ofhighly advanced civilisation, it is not so important that theadministration should be good for a certain period, but that itshould be continuously and conformably good; that the nextadministration should not destroy the good work of the former one;that a thirty years' administration of Colbert should not befollowed by a Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, that forsuccessive centuries one should follow one and the same system, andstrive after one and the same object.Only under those politicalconstitutions in which the national interests are represented (andnot under an absolute Government, under which the Stateadministration is necessarily always modified according to theindividual will of the ruler) can such a steadiness and consistencyof administration be secured, as Antonio Serra rightly observes.Onthe other hand, there are undoubtedly certain grades ofcivilisation in which the administration by absolute power mayprove far more favourable to the economical and mental progress ofthe nation (and generally is so) than that of a limited monarchy.
We refer to periods of slavery and serfdom, of barbarism andsuperstition, of national disunity, and of caste privileges.For,under such circumstances, the constitution tends to secure not onlythe interests of the nation, but also the continuance of theprevailing evils, whereas it is the interest and the nature ofabsolute government to destroy the latter, and it is also possiblethat an absolute ruler may arise of distinguished power andsagacity, who may cause the nation to make advances for centuries,and secure to its nationality existence and progress for all futuretime.
It is consequently only a conditional commonplace truth on thefaith of which J.B.Say would exclude politics from his doctrine.