Rocco D’Ambrosca: 04/27/2010
In, The Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau presents a theory of civil society, in an attempt to preserve individual liberty within a political state. One of the major concepts that Rousseau includes in his theory is that of the general will. Rousseau argues that the general will is infallible and should be the basis of the law within society. It will be shown that although Rousseau is correct that the general will is infallible, it is incorrect to use such as the basis of a civil government.
The civil society that Rousseau presents, offers a unique system of government. He argues against a monarchy as a system of government, and offers a new perspective on sovereignty. Typically at the time, sovereignty was possessed solely by the king or monarch of the state, with all swearing allegiance to him and observing him as the sole authority. Rousseau correctly argues that in such a system the people of the state do not possess liberty and offers a new model.
Rousseau’s model sees the people as the sovereign. The people collectively embody the sovereign, not an individual king or monarch. The sovereign is all those within the state who have agreed to a social contract or agreement to exist together for the mutual benefit of all. Rousseau reasons, “the sovereign, being formed wholly of the individuals who compose it, neither has nor can have any interest contrary to theirs; and consequently the sovereign power need give no guarantee to its subjects, because it is impossible for the body to wish to hurt all its members.” (RousseauB1C7). Such conception of the sovereign, allows a system that would work in its own collective interest, rather than that of an individual king. No one will reasonably act against the state as such would be an act against himself.
Such a conception of the state is what leads Rousseau to the formation of a general will. When presenting the idea of a general will he is quick to differentiate it from the will of all. “There is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and the general will; the later considers only the common interest, while the former takes private interest into account, and is no more than a sum of particular wills: but take away from these same wills the pluses and minuses that cancel one another, and the general will remains as the sum of the differences.” (RousseauB2C3). Rousseau also adds that, “the general will is always right and tends to the public advantage; but it does not follow that the deliberations of the people will always be equally correct. Our will is always for our own good, but we do not always see what that is; the people is never corrupted, but it is often deceived, and on such occasions only does it seem to will what is bad.” (RousseauB2C3).
When Rousseau says the general will is always right or infallible, he is simply reflecting the mechanics of the system he is creating. By definition of the system, the people are the sovereign holding absolute authority, and hence their general will is inherently infallible as a reflection of such authority. However, Rousseau points out that the general will is not omniscient. This is to say; although the general will is always in the right it is not always correct. Rousseau expresses quite plainly, the absolute need of the people to be informed and educated regarding the common good, if they are able to accurately vote as to what is the correct general will. Rousseau also states the need for concealed individual ballots to limit and hopefully prevent the formation of factions, which can skew the general will to their own interests. “When the people, being furnished with adequate information, held its deliberations, the citizens had no communication one with another, the grand total of the small differences would always give the general will, and the decision would always be good. But, when factions arise, and partial associations are formed at the expense of the great association, the will of each of these associations becomes general in relation to its members, while it remains particular in relation to the state.” (RousseauB2C3).
These apparent flaws in the ability of the general will to correctly express the common good of the people are more than enough to render a verdict of no confidence as the basis of a civil government. It is far too easy for the populous to become out of touch and uninformed as to what constitutes an accurate expression of the common good. There is also no guarantee that individuals wouldn’t, at least occasionally if not always, vote in their own interest instead of the interest of all. Further, the potential for factions to form and force the general will to their benefit at the cost of others is also another constant threat to the reliability. Therefore, the general will is simply too unreliable and easily corruptible to serve as the basis of a government. It is far more useful to be used as a supplement to a system based on natural rights as prescribed by John Locke. Such a system would be far more reliable and consistent with the common good than the general will could ever be on its own. Natural rights instituted in a form similar to the U.S. Bill of Rights and Constitution will ensure that the common good is always upheld, while allowing the general will to occasionally augment such grounding foundations of liberty when appropriate.
RoccoJoe.com 