In The Social Contract Rousseau recognises the will of all and the general will as well as the common good and particular interests. Basically, the former two are consequences of the decision making process. The will of all is a result of citizens voting according to their own interests, while the general will is an equal product of everyone's interests (so when they vote in terms of the common good) (Wolff 2006, pp. 78-79). As Rousseau argues, if the decision making process is done in terms of the will of all, it will make a majority and a minority. The minority will not get what they want, so it will be bound by the majority's decision. As a result, it will not be free. Because of this Rousseau rejects this idea and argues for the general will. If people think in terms of the general will, they will all agree. Since the general will is created by every member of the state, everyone will get what they want. Therefore all citizens will live by their own will and be genuinely free (Bluhm 1984, p. 372).
It is quite interesting how this kind of society could be governed and how the laws would be established. Rousseau argues that it would be irrational if it required universal participation. Therefore the body that would apply the laws would not be the sovereign but some sort of government or executive (an 'elected aristocracy'). It would consist of wise men who would govern in their citizens' interest, and not just in their own (Wolff 2006, pp. 79-80).
In this perfect world shown by Rousseau each citizen benefits from living in the society. Everyone is a part of the sovereign, therefore everyone has the same equal influence on the policy making process. For this reason people will vote for what is best for the common good, which is also their good. However, we should ask how we could achieve unanimity. But Rousseau himself admits that not everyone will be able to see what the common good is. In fact, he even says that we will not get unanimity. However, as he argues, unanimity is not required (the only law where unanimity is essential is the contract law) because the majority will usually be right and know what is best for everyone. Therefore those who had a different opinion were simply mistaken about the general will and since they actually want the general will, they will get what is best for them and be free (Rousseau 2006, 1762, pp. 125-128). Rousseau believes that in the system which he proposes people would vote not according to their own interests but to what is best for everyone, and that the majority would always get it right. I am now going to argue that he is wrong in his assumptions.
In Rousseau's system education would play a crucial role. It is important for Rousseau that people are educated into citizenship. Moreover, as previously said, he believes that everyone is equally affected by the same laws. However, it can be argued how it would be possible. People's wealth differs and it is safe to assume that class differences would have some sort of influence on their interests. Even though all laws apply to everyone we could argue that they would not affect them in the same way. Therefore it can be doubted that there would be any general will at all and even if there was, there is no evidence it would be right (Wolff 2006, p. 81). However, Rousseau predicts these issues and holds solutions to them. First of all, there should not be huge inequalities in wealth. If the presence of classes made the existence of the general will impossible, they should be abolished. As he says, at the very least there should be no people who would be rich enough to buy other people's votes and no people who would be so poor that they would sell their votes (Rousseau 2006, 1762, pp. 58-59). Rousseau does not say how equality could be attained but it can be argued that the absence of classes would make the existence of the general will more likely. He admits that people would sometimes make mistakes but the general will would be the achieved difference after cancellation of the pluses and minuses (Wolff 2006, pp. 81-82).
Another thing that could be a source of problems is creation of factions, such as political parties, trade unions or special interest groups. It can be assumed that such groups will not vote for the common good but for the best interest of their members. For instance, if a company is planning bonuses and there are multiple trade unions inside the firm, ideally they should all vote for an equal distribution of money. However, it is not hard to believe that each one of them will want the whole amount to be given to their members instead of an equal distribution of money. Therefore Rousseau argues that in this kind of society should ideally be no political parties or other such groups but even if there were any, there should be a very high number of them. As a result each group will have a tiny influence on decision making (Wolff 2006, pp. 82-83).
Unfortunately, it is still not convincing that people will vote for the general will and not their own interests. According to Rousseau, there should be a few things that will teach people to want the general will. First of all, as I have already mentioned, education. Citizens have to be educated in order to fight their natural tendency for egoism. This process has to be started at the moment of their birth because if selfishness has filled a man, it is already too late (Ake 1967, p. 9). If people are educated in their young age, they will be patriotic and will perceive others as brothers, which will strengthen the bonds between them and as a result they will vote for the common good not their own interests. Critics would argue that educating people to think about the state, not themselves is brainwashing like in totalitarian or fascist countries. Though for Rousseau there should already exist natural customs and traditions uniting people and education will only be a formal kind of bond. Moreover, he is not particularly troubled that his idea is contradictory with the modern liberal thought. In fact, he goes even further by saying that in his ideal society there should be censorship and a civil religion. The goal of censorship is to promote public morality. Therefore the role of censors is to ban and punish anti-social behaviour (Rousseau 2006, 1762, pp. 151-153). Another factor uniting societies in all states should be civil religion. Rousseau argues that every citizen ought to have some kind of religion, which would make him fulfil his obligations. What is more, variety of religions must be tolerated. This will help to unite different religious groups. Intolerant faiths should not be allowed as they would only make people hostile to each other. Above all, there should be a civil religion created by the sovereign, which would be an expression 'of social conscience, without which it is impossible to be either a good citizen or a loyal subject' (Wolff 2006, pp. 83-84; Rousseau 2006, 1762, pp. 165-166).
As I said at the beginning of my essay, in my opinion Rousseau's idea of the civil society is fallible. While reading The Social Contract some issues concerning equality can be found. First of all, Rousseau always refers to citizens in the masculine form. In fact, he even admits that women are naturally subordinate to men. Therefore he argues that only men should be given the citizenship (Wolff 2006, p. 85; Cook 1975, p. 115). One of Rousseau's critics was Mary Wollstonecraft, who raises this issue in Vindication of the Rights of Women. She criticises the opinion that only men should have the right to vote and demands the same right for women. As Wolff (2006) argues, even though Rousseau excludes women from the citizenship, according to his political ideas there will actually be no exclusion and they suggest that there will be perfect equality (p. 86).
There are some other aspects of his theory which his critics find very wrong. Firstly, it is safe to assume that modern societies would probably not be willing to turn to the Rousseau's idea. In the modern world people differ according to wealth. Besides that they belong to different ethnicities, religions, cultures and races. As a result they do not all want the same. They have different needs and desires and they probably would not be satisfied by the same general will. Another problem with Rousseau's state is the way minorities would be treated. Rousseau argues that minorities are simply wrong so they have to conform to the majority's will. Disagreement means disobedience to the law, which is a crime, and crime is treason. Also his idea of religion sounds rather totalitarian. Atheism is not allowed, intolerant beliefs are not tolerated and everyone has to accept the civil religion. For acting against the civil religion, which the citizen has already conformed to, the penalty is death. It is especially outrageous if there is no general will, so minorities might actually not be wrong. One more issue that can be criticised is Rousseau's idea of citizens being 'forced to be free' (Rousseau 2006, 1762, p. 19). He claims that obedience to the law makes a citizen free. However, it is wrong to say that a citizen who voted differently than the general will is free by being forced to obey the law he did not make (Wolff 2006, pp. 86-88; Affeldt 1999, pp. 301-304; Ake 1967, pp. 13-14).
In my essay I tried to show why Rousseau claims that the general will can never 'err' and whether he is right or not. Rousseau argues that people should make a social contract that will define the laws of the state that they live in. In doing so they will break the chains and from a 'stupid, limited animal' become free again. All citizens (i.e. adult males) will be the sovereign. They will all rule and all laws will apply to them equally. Moreover, people must vote for the common good not their own interests. As a result, the majority's decision will always be right and become the general will. Minorities' opinions are simply mistakes and since everyone wants the general will, all citizens will get what they want, which will make them free. Critics show several issues of Rousseau's idea. Firstly, it is hard to imagine that people would want to leave what they have to make a new social contract. Secondly, there might not be any general will at all, and even if there is, it might not be right. Thirdly, in Rousseau's state minorities' opinions would be ignored. Fourthly, every citizen would have to subscribe to the civil religion and his own faith. In addition, there would be censorship. Fifthly, only men could be citizens. In his theory Rousseau completely ignores women. It all shows that there is absolutely no evidence that even if there was a general will, it would always be right. What is more, I disagree with Rousseau's idea of freedom. In my opinion in Rousseau's society the general will could 'err' and there would be major issues related to freedom and equality.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Affeldt, S. G.: 'The Force of Freedom: Rousseau on Forcing to be Free' in Political Theory, Vol. 27, No. 3 (June 1999), pp. 299-333
Ake, C. E.: 'Right, Utility, and Rousseau' in The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 1 (March 1967), pp. 5-15
Bluhm, W. T.: 'Freedom in “Social Contract”: Rousseau's “Legitimate Chains”' in Polity, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Spring 1984), pp. 359-383
Cook, T. E.: 'Rousseau: Education and Politics' in The Journal of Politics, Vol. 37, No. 1 (February 1975), pp. 108-128
Maloy, J. S.: 'The Very Order of Things: Rousseau's Tutorial Republicanism' in Polity, Vol. 37, No. 2 (April 2005), pp. 235-261
Melzer, A. M.: 'Rousseau's Moral Realism: Replacing Natural Law with the General Will' in The American Political Science Review, Vol. 77, No. 3 (September 1983), pp. 633-651
Rousseau, J.: The Social Contract. Penguin Books: New York, 2006, 1762
Wolff, J.: An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2006