May be not. What do u mean exactly? As a matter of fact it is a useful recall "The French Republic, like ours, is founded on the principle of representation and responsibility. The members of its legislature are chosen by the people. They become at short periods amenable to their constituents, by the frequent return of elections. And as further security, they are divided into two branches, as checks the one on the other. If it be true, as alleged, that under these circumstances, a tyrannical usurpation has already taken place in that government, is not here an example in point against the doctrine so ardently propagated by many, that in a republic the People ought to consider the whole of their political duty as discharged when they have chosen their representatives; that it is impossible in fact and ought never to be presumed, that men chosen by the people, and having a common interest with the People, can pursue an interest different from that of the People; and consequently that the People ought at all times to place an unlimited confidence in rulers so chosen, applauding the wisdom of public measures where they can see it and assuring themselves that it is equally the foundation of all others, where nothing but folly and mischief may appear on the face of them.

Nothing can be more contradictory than this reasoning, to the alleged usurpations of the French Government, and yet, however curious it may be, many who proclaim these usurpations with most energy, are the same who with no less energy preach an unlimited confidence in representative government as incapable of them.

The inconsistency is not done away by pleading the extraordinary means employed by the French Government in their illegitimate pursuits, such as the expulsion and banishment of part of their own body, controuling the elections of successors, &c. &c. The observation always recurs, that such means were in fact employed, in such pursuits, by elective and responsible agents; and consequently that such agents are not incapable of violating the trust committed to them. 

It must not be permitted however, either to the friend of liberty in despair, or to its enemy in disguise, to turn this inference against the merit and competency of the Representative principle. The true lesson it teaches is, that in no case ought the eyes of the People to be shut on the conduct of those entrusted with power; not their tongues tied from a just wholesome censure on it, any more than from merited commendations. If neither gratitude for the honor of the trust, nor responsibility for the use of it , be sufficient to curb the unruly passions of public functionaries, add new bits to the bridle rather than to take it off altogether. This is the precept of common sense illustrated and enforced by experience - uncontrolled power ever has been, and ever will be administered by the passions more than by reason.
..../....