As Alain Alcouffe and I mentioned in our previous post, a dramatic political showdown was unfolding in real time in the Republic of Geneva during Adam Smith’s sojourn in Switzerland, for in November 1765 the General Council of Geneva had refused to rubber-stamp the Small Council’s slate of pre-approved candidates for the offices of Procureur-Général and Auditeur. Suffice it to say that the resulting legal vacuum was an unprecedented one, for such a standoff was simply not contemplated, let alone foreseen, by the existing laws of the Swiss city-state, such as the Edicts of 1543 or the Act of Mediation of 1738. (Bennett 1995, p. 145.)

Never before had the General Council refused to elect candidates to these posts. (Ibid.) As a result, given these uncharted constitutional waters, the Small Council was now faced with a difficult dilemma: it could either cooperate or collaborate with the General Council to resolve their differences — indeed, one could even argue that the Small Council was obliged to consult with the General Council on serious constitutional matters (see ibid.) — or it could take unilateral action and thus become an illegal dictatorship in all but name only. [For further background, see Dorina Verli, “Reforming Democracy: Constitutional Crisis and Rousseau’s Advice to Geneva”, Review of Politics, Vol. 80 (2018), pp. 415-438, especially pp. 420-421.]

As it happens, the Small Council decided to break this constitutional deadlock by simply extending the terms of the outgoing officers until further notice. Though their constitutional terms had now expired, these judicial officers — including Jean-Robert Tronchin, the Procureur-Général who had set this constitutional crisis in motion when he initiated the legal prosecution against Jean-Jacques Rousseau in June 1762 — would now remain in their posts indefinitely! In addition, the Small Council agreed in principle on 31 December 1765 to invite representatives from France, a Catholic kingdom ruled by an absolute monarch! — as well as from two of its Swiss allies, the sister city-states of Bern and Zurich — to intervene, if necessary (Bennett 1995, p. 146.)

Now, the proverbial ball was in the General Council’s court, for the annual election of Geneva’s four syndics was scheduled to take place in a matter of days on 5 January 1766, the first Sunday of the new year. The syndics were the chief magistrates of Geneva’s government. Without them, the government could not make any decisions or conduct any business. Would the General Council back down, or would it refuse to elect the syndics too? (To be continued …)