The Social Contract: 4

In Book II Rousseau's sovereign is explained in more detail - it is inalienable because what it consists of is, by definition, the common interest of all individuals; it is indivisible, because it is either the general will or it is not, and the general will is passed as law - authority that does not represent the general will is bollocks; the general will errs when society is divided into sections, so that sections collude in their vote and citizens do not make up their own minds; the general will has limits, eg. it cannot bear upon particular interests, which must be observed and treated individually.

The Social Contract is a covenant, between the general will - the body - with each of its members. Because of man's natural freedom it always comes back to this: people entered into an original covenant, because everyone living on their own strength became unfeasible. The sovereign provides strength and security to all, in equal measure.

Things become tricky when the question of the right over life and death arises. Rousseau argues that the state has the right to judge a citizen's life expedient:

Whoever wishes to preserve his own life at the expense of others must give his life for them when it is necessary ... his life is no longer the bounty of nature but a gift he has received conditionally from the state

Ahem, ok.

As for law in itself, as we have already seen it is nothing but acts of the general will. But following from the state's control over the individual's very life, it is easy to see why Rousseau's little book can have been used to justify overly strong states. A little later we read:

Individuals must be obliged to subordinate their will to their reason; the public must be taught to recognise what it desires

Strong words indeed. The intention seems to be not to let individuals' desires ruin the common interest that the state represents, nay, is.

The rest of Book II goes on to investigate the relation between the lawgiver and the people. The proper lawgiver is no ordinary person, and just as rare, and ultimately has never existed (except, Rousseau says, in God). But this founder of nations, this "engineer who invents the machine", has a tendency to invoke the gods to justify his laws to his fellows. Apparently this is why religion often accompanies the birth of a nation.

This engineer of the future society is no softy. I imagine that this is every bit true, but it is quite chilling to hear it all the same:

The founder of nations must weaken the structure of man in order to fortify it, to replace the physical and independent existence we have all received from nature with a moral and communal existence

It is not that the outcome does not appear "good" (with emphasis on "appear"), but the thought of what the state will be willing to do to achieve this goal. I am beginning to see why The Social Contract is a kind of precursor to socialism and a strong state.

But if this sounds hardhanded, it must be remembered that the law is really the general will - i.e., it helps to realise the common interest. We are given a helpful note on how to distinguish between a lawgiver and a tyrant: "note the moment he chooses to give a people its constitution":

Usurpers always choose troubled times to enact, in the atmosphere of general panic, laws which the public would never adopt when passions are cool

I have decided that the treatise is very much worth reading - more than once even, it isn't very long - for its great insights into the nature of politics. It seems fresh even after more than two centuries. As such I can't convey all the details here without becoming boring - and he said it better anyway. But I think it is worth one more post to elaborate on his view of a good democracy.