PDF Summary:The Social Contract, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

How can a state ethically justify its use of force? When are we morally obligated to obey the law? These are the questions 18th-century Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau confronts in The Social Contract. He argues that an ethical state must be created by a social contract: a general, society-wide agreement to pursue the common good. Rousseau then discusses how this contract serves as a foundation for a state that protects its citizens, offers freedom, and seeks to make decisions for the good of all.

In our guide, we’ll explain the logic behind Rousseau’s social contract theory, and how he proposes structuring a government best suited to pursuing the common good. We also provide historical context for Rousseau’s arguments, as well as alternative philosophical perspectives on social contract theory, government uses of political power, and the ideal ethical government.

(continued)...

Rousseau divides legitimate government into two branches: legislators who create a constitution, and executives who create and enforce specific laws.

The Legislators

The legislators write a constitution consisting of rules for how the government functions. Their main goal when writing this constitution is to express the sovereign will of the people, preserving liberty and equality—in other words, the common good. There’s no one constitution perfect for all states; instead, the legislature must create one specific to their own state’s circumstances. While the legislators create the constitution, the sovereign alone has the right to make it into law and the right to change it (more on this in Part 4).

Rousseau explains two reasons why the legislators must exist separate from the sovereign and the executives:

1. They must exist separate from the sovereign because the sovereign is responsible for making the constitution into law—if the legislators could create and approve their own rules, then they would be free to act in self-interest.
2. The legislators must exist separate from the executives to prevent a conflict of interest; after all, the constitution consists of limits and rules executives must follow.

Representatives in a Legitimate State

Rousseau has a complicated view on representatives in government. On the one hand, he argues in book three of The Social Contract that representatives cannot speak for the will of the sovereign. On the other hand, here he suggests that legislators must create laws on behalf of the sovereign in a legitimate state.

Some scholars attempt to resolve this contradiction, arguing that Rousseau intends for the sovereign to act as a gatekeeper for potential legislation, rather than as a creator. Under this interpretation, the sovereign expresses the general will by blocking laws or government members (more on this in Part 4) instead of by writing laws themselves. This perspective resolves the contradiction: The sovereign still speaks for itself, but also requires legislators to propose potential laws.

The Executives

Once a government has a constitution, it will need executives to make and enforce laws and manage the affairs of the state. Rousseau explains that an ideal executive must follow three directives in their decision-making:

1. Pursuit of the common good is the first priority of any law or decision since the sovereign empowers the executives for that specific purpose.
2. As a second priority, the executives must maintain their own authority—that is, they need to maintain the power to deal with specific decisions because the sovereign can’t.
3. Executives must work to prevent self-interest from influencing their decision-making because self-interest will inevitably conflict with the common good.

Executive Standards of Legitimacy

While Rousseau provides these three guidelines for executives’ decision-making, he doesn’t elaborate on what following them would look like. For more specifics on how these executives should make decisions, political philosopher John Rawls provides two standards for ensuring legitimate use of government authority:

1) The government must create laws with just outcomes. To Rawls, “just” means the fair application of the law to all citizens.

2) The government must create laws according to existing rules and systems for government function—in other words, its constitution. A law that has a just outcome but wasn’t created in accordance with these systems is illegitimate.

Rawls’s two standards apply to all three of Rousseau’s directives for executives:

• Common good: A law that applies fairly to all citizens (following Rawls’s first standard) is in service of the common good because no one is favored over anyone else.

• Maintain executive authority: Rawls’s second standard of using rules and systems for governance allows executives to clearly define their own authority—and a clear definition makes it harder for the sovereign or legislators to infringe on executive authority.

• Avoid self-interest: Both of Rawls’s standards apply here: By creating just laws and following the limits on executive authority established by the constitution, executives can avoid making laws out of self-interest.

The state must find executives who strive to follow these three directives so their government can exercise legitimate authority. Rousseau outlines three different systems a state might use to pick these executives:

System #1: Democracy

First, Rousseau discusses democracy: a system where all citizens act as executives, making and enforcing laws.

(Shortform note: When Rousseau discusses democracy, he’s talking about direct democracy, rather than representative democracy. Here’s the difference between the two: Direct democracy is a system of government where citizens vote on all major decisions or issues that the government faces. The most famous example of a true direct democracy is the ancient city-state of Athens. Representative democracy is a system of government where citizens elect representatives to participate in the government—this is the system most people refer to today when talking about democracy. Representative democracies include countries like the modern-day United States, France, or Singapore.)

Rousseau argues that a democratic government can rarely exercise legitimate power: In other government systems, the sovereign and the constitution place limits on the executives. However, in a democracy, the sovereign is the executive and doesn’t need a constitution on its behalf. Therefore, nothing prevents a majority of citizens from creating and enforcing laws out of self-interest. When they do so, they force their will upon the minority of citizens, no longer pursue the common good, and therefore can’t exercise legitimate power.

(Shortform note: For a deeper explanation of why democracy often collapses due to self-interest, we can look to Plato’s Republic. Plato argues that a democratic state is run by those who can persuade the most people—not those who are the smartest or wisest or most moral. Because of this, a democratic state doesn’t run by consistent moral standards—people value whatever appeals to them most, rather than what they find the most just or wise. Therefore, democratic society runs on self-interest. Plato argues that such a society will eventually collapse into tyranny when a leader can appeal to citizens’ self-interests in exchange for increasing political powers.)

System #2: Monarchy

Second, Rousseau discusses monarchy: a government with a single executive. Rousseau argues that a monarchical government is seriously flawed, and can rarely exercise legitimate power. A government run by a single individual is particularly vulnerable to the flaws, whims, and selfish interests of that individual.

System #3: Aristocracy

Finally, Rousseau explains aristocracy: a government composed of a small group of individuals, acting separately from the sovereign. Three guidelines can determine the executives in an aristocracy:

1. Those who have the most power or wealth
2. Those who inherit their power
3. Those who the people elect

Rousseau argues that the third guideline—determining aristocrats through elections—is usually the best choice for creating a legitimate government, as it allows for wise and skilled executives chosen by the people rather than executives who simply have power, wealth, or a certain lineage. He explains that a smaller group of talented executives function better than the large government of direct democracy without relying too much on one individual like a monarchy.

The Values of Governments

Baron de Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws also compares different government types and explores what keeps them stable or causes them to collapse. However, while Rousseau argues that the key values behind any legitimate government must be liberty and equality, Montesquieu argues that different government types require different key values to be stable and effective. Montesquieu outlines four types of government and explains the key values behind each:

1) Democracy: The key value behind democracy is virtue: love of the state and of good citizenship and a willingness to make personal sacrifices for the good of the state as a whole. A stable and beneficial democratic government needs virtuous citizens because virtuous citizens want to participate in government and to keep its various institutions stable.

2) Despotism: Montesquieu’s definition of despotism is similar to Rousseau’s definition of a monarchy—a government run by a single individual with absolute power. Unlike a monarchy, however, the key value behind a despotic government is fear. If subjects no longer fear a despotic government, then they will either hold it accountable or overthrow it—the former makes the government no longer despotic, and the latter makes it fail entirely.

3) Monarchy: Montesquieu uses a different definition of monarchy than Rousseau: a government united under a single individual with effective laws limiting the power of that individual. The strength and effectiveness of these laws separate monarchy from despotism. The key value behind monarchy is honor: submission to the state and participation in its institutions out of self-interest. Honor is necessary for a monarchy because it doesn’t have the power of a despot to force obedience, but also can’t offer its subjects the same political rights as a democracy.

4) Aristocracy: Montesquieu defines aristocracy as a government run primarily by a hereditary, landed group of nobles—even if it has a monarch. The key value of aristocracy is moderation: the ability to balance the political powers of the state’s monarch, nobles, and subjects. By correctly moderating the political powers of these groups, an aristocratic government makes them all work together in a stable and effective state and prevents any group from becoming strong enough to overpower the others.

Part 4: Preserving the Legitimate State

All legitimate states eventually die, claims Rousseau. The division of power between the sovereign and the government can’t be perfect, and when one gains too much power over the other then it can freely act in self-interest and the state stops being legitimate:

• When the sovereign has the power to both create and enforce laws, then nothing prevents a majority of citizens from forcing its will upon the minority, acting in self-interest rather than the common good—an illegitimate use of power.
• When the government has the power to create and enforce laws, nothing prevents executives from acting in self-interest rather than the common good—an illegitimate use of power.

(Shortform note: By claiming that the legitimacy of a state will eventually collapse, Rousseau differentiates his project from other philosophical attempts to determine a perfect state. Other works like Plato’s Republic or Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan claim that their ideal state can exist forever if properly managed. Rousseau’s declaration that an eternal state is impossible is a rare appeal to pragmatism in an otherwise idealistic book.)

However, a legitimate state can prolong its life by creating systems to delay an imbalance of power. Rousseau identifies three systems that prolong the life of a legitimate state:

System #1: Public Assemblies

Rousseau emphasizes that for the sovereign to express its will, the people must gather regularly in public assemblies. The state must ensure a vast majority of citizens attend these assemblies, using force if necessary—otherwise, the sovereign as a whole can’t express its will. These public assemblies ensure the government acts in service of the common good and therefore acts legitimately.

At these assemblies, the sovereign can change any law except the social contract itself and can replace individual executives or their government as a whole.

Because of the incredible logistical challenges required to assemble the entire population of a state, Rousseau concedes that regular public assemblies and, by extension, the sovereign’s ability to exercise authority, can only occur in very small states.

Rousseau and Totalitarianism

While Rousseau believes that public assemblies are necessary for an ethical state, some scholars argue that Rousseau’s suggestions on the expression of the general will resemble totalitarian regimes. This viewpoint argues that Rousseau’s “legitimate state” is in fact an unethical regime that controls every aspect of citizens’ lives and represses all dissent. Rousseau’s critics use two examples in particular to argue that his legitimate state is totalitarian:

1) Rousseau’s claim that a state can and must use force to compel its citizens to act in service of the general will. Critics argue that through this claim, Rousseau gives the state full permission to force any dissenters to obey.

2) The historical example of the Reign of Terror. In the Reign of Terror, the French revolutionary government publicly executed hundreds of perceived “enemies of the state.” Robespierre, one of the main architects of the Reign of Terror, famously loved Rousseau’s philosophy and used it (and other enlightenment philosophies) to justify this violence as the will of the people. However, other scholars note that Robespierre ultimately denounced enlightenment philosophers like Rousseau during the Reign of Terror, suggesting that its violence was actually an expression of anti-enlightenment ideals.

System #2: Public Unity

Public unity is also crucial for prolonging a legitimate state, explains Rousseau. When opinion among citizens becomes too divided and they form different factions, the sovereign will of the people becomes divided. If one faction wins, they enforce their will on the losing faction and no longer pursue a common good. Since public unity is crucial for pursuing the common good (the goal of a legitimate state), steps taken to preserve public unity are legitimate.

(Shortform note: Many of the founders of the United States agreed with Rousseau’s claim that factionalism posed a serious threat to a liberal and equal state. James Madison argued in The Federalist Papers that a well-constructed state must have the ability to stop and prevent factional violence. George Washington in his farewell address also warned that political parties were dangerous for a liberal state.)

Rousseau offers two methods a state can use to preserve public unity:

Method #1: Censorship

The state should use censorship to maintain public unity. For a legitimate state to continue, its people must share its core beliefs: liberty, equality, and pursuit of the common good. Otherwise, citizens will see no reason not to act in self-interest, and the public will no longer have unity. Censoring information that goes against these core beliefs ensures that the personal ethical beliefs of individuals align with the core beliefs of a legitimate state, maintaining public unity.

(Shortform note: Rousseau’s argument for censorship in a state whose main goal is liberty might seem contradictory. Some scholars argue that Rousseau’s definition of censorship is closer to broad social taboo, rather than government bans on expression. This interpretation claims that Rousseau’s censorship is a collaborative effort between a wise government and its moral people. Together, they determine the common good and then silence public expression arguing against it, so citizens remain moral and dedicated to the state. Therefore, this perspective argues that censorship wouldn’t be a government depriving its people of liberty but instead a tool for public moral education.)

Method #2: State Religion

The state can also preserve public unity by creating its own religion. With a state religion, political and religious ideals are the same, so citizens will work to become good citizens (and therefore pursue the common good) with the devotion of faithful believers. However, the state religion shouldn’t be incompatible with other religions—religious intolerance also promotes public disunity.

(Shortform note: To fully understand why Rousseau argues for a state religion, it’s important to understand the historical context behind The Social Contract. Rousseau published the book in 1762, only a few decades after the end of the European wars of religion—a series of religious conflicts between Catholics and Protestants spanning the 16th, 17th, and early 18th centuries. Founding a tolerant state religion is Rousseau’s attempt to prevent similar internal religious violence from happening again.)

System #3: Supreme Powers

Rousseau also argues that in specific circumstances, a legitimate state must create entities with supreme political power to maintain its legitimacy and protect itself:

The Tribunal

When the constitution can’t resolve a dispute between the sovereign and the government, Rousseau suggests that an independent tribunal arbitrate the conflict. The tribunal is separate from the sovereign and the executives, so it has no conflicts of interest. Rousseau argues that because the tribunal is uniquely powerful within the state, it shouldn’t exist permanently. Instead, it should only exist during the brief periods when conflicts arise.

(Shortform note: You might notice similarities between Rousseau’s tribunal and the highest courts of many existing modern states—the Supreme Court of the United States, for example. The Supreme Court and the tribunal both resolve disputes regarding interpretations of the law and how those laws apply to citizens. However, the Supreme Court is made up of life-appointed justices, while Rousseau recommends frequent dissolution and recreation of tribunals as needed. By doing so, he argues that these tribunals won’t gain executive powers—which one could argue the Supreme Court has, since it can in practice create laws via judicial review.)

The Dictatorship

When the state faces destruction from external forces like an invading foreign power, Rousseau says it should install a temporary dictatorship: one or two individuals with absolute power. This is because a normal government with its limits on executive power won’t be able to properly address existential threats.

Dictatorial power is still legitimate, since protecting their state from destruction is clearly the will of the people. However, Rousseau emphasizes that the state should use dictatorship rarely and only for brief periods so dictators don’t have an opportunity to forcefully take control of the state.

(Shortform note: Rousseau also argues that the constitution must prevent any extension of dictatorial rule and that any dictator chosen must strongly believe in the state’s core beliefs of liberty and equality. Without these guidelines, a temporary dictatorship can destroy the state. He explains that this is part of what caused the collapse of the Roman republic. In theory, the Roman senate would vote to provide dictatorial power only during times of crisis. This power lasted for six months, though traditionally dictators gave up their power immediately after the crisis ended. However, during the collapse of the Roman republic, the senate gave (often under threat of violence) dictatorial power for extended—sometimes indefinite—periods.)