Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
On the Social Contract rousseau
On the Social Contract rousseau
Weaknesses of democracy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Rousseau describes democracy as a form of government that “has never existed and never will” ; yet twenty-six countries in the world are considered to be full democracies. How can this be possible? Rousseau’s concept of democracy supports the most fundamental and basic premise of democracy – one in which all citizens directly participate. While his idea of democracy cannot be considered an effective indictment of what passes for democracy today, it is not Rousseau’s account which is flawed but that in modern society is would be practically impossible to achieve this idea of democracy.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau defines democracy as a government in which “the sovereign entrust the government to the entire people…so that there are more citizens who are magistrates than who are ordinary private citizens”. In Rousseau’s democracy the people are both the subject and the sovereign and as such they both make the law and are subject to the law. Although the people are both sovereign and subjects, the sovereignty of the people is based solely in the assembly, and thus when the people are no longer assembled they become subject to following the same laws that they have just created.
Although it may seem counteractive to have the citizens develop the same laws that they will have to later follow, Rousseau says that all laws passed will be based on the general will and thus they will be inherently good. Rousseau states that all laws passed by the assembly are “solely the authentic acts of the general will” and because “the general will is always right” , all laws passed are inherently good.
Along with these basic premises in Rousseau’s democracy, four basic conditions must exist to allow for democracy to flourish: a small state, a “g...
... middle of paper ...
...titutions and most importantly the citizens. To expect all the citizens in a democracy to lack ambition and greed is practically impossible, especially when modern society teaches individuals that ambition is a necessary component of success. Yet, there are nations that do ascribe to the democratic ideals as realistically as possible. By allowing and encouraging citizens to vote and by creating and implementing laws equally these democratic governments are instituting some of the most important ideals of a democratic government.
Works Cited
Economist Intelligence Unit. "Democracy Index 2010." Information Policy. Economist Intelligence Unit, 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2011. .
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Donald A. Cress. "On Democracy." Basic Political Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1987. 179-80. Print.
John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies.
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.
Therefore, in order for any form of democracy to function, Representative Democracy is the superior form of political rule. Jean Jacques Rousseau is considered by many to be the `Grandfather' of direct democracy theory. Rousseau's ideal society would be where the citizens were directly involved in the creation of the laws which are to govern their lives. He maintained that, "all citizens should meet together and decide what is best for the community and enact the appropriate laws. Any law which was not directly created by the citizens is not valid, and if those laws are imposed on people, that is equivalent to the people being enslaved.
Throughout the course of history, mankind has been recorded to corrupt itself. Men have grown tired of simply surviving; they have had to take and conquer others. Absolute monarchies control wealth, land, and even lives of men. The conditions of the people were solely dependent on the conditions of the one who was in power in that particular place and time. History has proven that most men rule unwisely in their kingdoms. To avoid tyrannical rule, some make an attempt to set up a government in which the people ruled themselves. This form of government is called a democracy, or “rule of the people.” History has also revealed through the Greeks and the French Revolution, that a democracy that gives complete power to the people, “absolute democracy”, is nothing more than a short prelude to tyranny.
Inferably, Rousseau admitted that only legitimate powers ought to be obeyed. But what is legitimate power? Where does it come from? If it all comes from God, how can w...
It is easier to describe what is not freedom, in the eyes of Rousseau and Marx, than it would be to say what it is. For Rousseau, his concept of freedom cannot exist so long as a human being holds power over others, for this is counter to nature. People lack freedom because they are constantly under the power of others, whether that be the tyrannical rule of a single king or the seething majority which can stifle liberty just as effectively. To be truly free, says Rousseau, there has to be a synchronization of perfect in...
“We have had the habit of thinking of democracy as a kind of political mechanism that will work as long faithful as citizens were reasonably in performing their duties” (Dewey 1939, 2).
To make this argument I will first outline this thought with regard to this issue. Second, I will address an argument in support of Rousseau’s view. Third, I will entertain the strongest possible counterargument to my view; namely, the idea that the general will contradicts itself by forcing freedom upon those who gain no freedom from the general will. Fourth, I will rebut that counter argument by providing evidence that the general will is always in favor of the common good. Finally, I will conclude my paper by summarizing the main lines of the argument of my paper and reiterate my thesis that we can force people to be free.
Its chief exponents are Jean-Jaques Rousseau(1712-78) and the New Left. This theory holds wisdom of the people in highest esteem and goes to the extent of deprecating representative government itself. It holds that wisdom of the people is bound to be diluted through the process of representation. The radical theory claims to be most progressive as it pays highest importance to the people, but it tends to rule out representation itself. Hence the liberal theory of representation may be treated a the most suited to the requirements of representative democracy(15).
...time onward, the concept of the enlightened despot had currency, calling for rulers governing with the betterment of the people's lot in mind. The idea of a centralized, authority-wielding confederation government is not terribly foreign to the notion of an autocratic, authoritarian, but enlightened despot, after all. This is but one of the conflicting ideas ranged against Rousseau's rather pessimistically realist conclusion; others are certainly possible.
Firstly, each individual should give themselves up unconditionally to the general cause of the state. Secondly, by doing so, all individuals and their possessions are protected, to the greatest extent possible by the republic or body politic. Lastly, all individuals should then act freely and of their own free will. Rousseau thinks th...
...ons on what kind of government should prevail within a society in order for it to function properly. Each dismissed the divine right theory and needed to start from a clean slate. The two authors agree that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature, which lacked society and structure. In addition, the two political philosophers developed differing versions of the social contract. In Hobbes’ system, the people did little more than choose who would have absolute rule over them. This is a system that can only be derived from a place where no system exists at all. It is the lesser of two evils. People under this state have no participation in the decision making process, only to obey what is decided. While not perfect, the Rousseau state allows for the people under the state to participate in the decision making process. Rousseau’s idea of government is more of a utopian idea and not really executable in the real world. Neither state, however, describes what a government or sovereign should expect from its citizens or members, but both agree on the notion that certain freedoms must be surrendered in order to improve the way of life for all humankind.
Rousseau argues that the citizens should be the ones who create the law when living in that particular society. He says “Laws are, properly speaking, only the conditions of civil association. The people, being subject to the laws, ought to be their author: the conditions of the society ought to be regulated solely by those who come together to form it.” Since the law is aimed at the citizens and punishments would oblige if not obeying to the law, it would simply be more accurate if the citizens themselves would create the law to make obedience simpler.
This indicates that the community will only be peaceful when the people are in the state of nature. However, this questions why a government is created if the result will only cause the government to be corrupt. He also believes that there are interest groups that will try to influence the government into supporting what they believe in. Rousseau sees that the people will only be involved in the government is they choose to participate in the voting. He also says that when the people are together as a collective, they work and are viewed differently compared to when they are as individuals. Although Rousseau does understand both Hobbes and Locke’s theories, it makes the audience wonder why he didn’t fully support the theory of leaving people in the state of nature. By doing so, it would allow the people to continue having individual freedom without causing a state of