1

The basic features of the public will

Student’s Name

University

Course

Professor

Date
 2

Introduction

Since time immemorial, specifically from the age of Plato to Marx, the primary issue of
political thought has essentially been the state, how it developed and the function of its
organization. Shaapera (2105) noted that the origin of the state, if a man was in some sort of
political creation, was one of the underlying concerns. Theorists have never sought concrete
answers to these problems. Nevertheless, there have been hypotheses put forward to justify the
start of the state. These include the theory of social contracts, coercion theory, the theory of the
divine right, evolutionary theory, and other theories.

As proposed by Jean Jacques Rousseau, this paper discusses the social contract theory.
It is interesting to notice that even social contract theorists did not agree from the outset on how
they started to consider their different study of existence from the point of view of the state of
nature. However, they accept that it was a social contract based on knowledge of the state of
nature. For example, Thomas Hobbes noted that the arrangement is an agreement between the
persons and the government, whereas Locke saw a contract as encompassing everything and
not the government. Rousseau agreed with Locke by claiming that "set" was to be provided by
the contract “collective security”. According to Hobbes,' life in the state of nature' can lead to
war between people, resulting in perpetual fear and conflict, of which a miserable life is the end
result. Locke also noted that the state of nature, in which an individual has rights and is
obligated to observe duties, is social and moral in character. That is not enough for Locke
because peace is continually distracted by the greed and savagery of incorrigible men due to a
lack of established rules, an indifferent judge and a lack of intelligence, in addition to a lack of
executive power to make the right decisions. Locke therefore argued that these were the
reasons for the creation of the society, devoid of evils, which gave rise to the social contest.

The Rosseau works are primarily discussed in this piece of writing. The paper also
discusses other scholars' thoughts on the subject in order to provide answers to ambiguous areas
in the thoughts of Rosseau.

Rousseau’s political ideas state of nature

According to Rousseau (2018), Rousseau's view of the state of nature is not negative, as
Hobbes suggested, or positive, as advanced by Locke. Rather, they are easily happy and
 3

without lack of individual thoughts, unreflective, solitary (like in Hobbes '). There are times,
however, where an individual may not exist in isolation, and they converge sometimes for a
common purpose. The family is created later, which is followed by the integration of many
families to form a society. Justice does not exist at the beginning of a society, but a group of
people decide to take advantage of others through the acquisition of private property. The
concept of establishing a power to rule men and give defense from common enemies emerges
from fear and abuse. "Men then agreed on a social contract aimed at providing "collective
protection. The social contract theorists, in particular Rousseau, thus discovered the root of the
state as a social contract between individuals to promote collective security.

Social contract of Rousseau

Muldoon (2016) and William (2014) noted that the social contract theory of Rousseau is
an idea that the state is a result of a contract entered into by men who used to live in a state of
nature and that there was only one contract, the social pact that excluded the state. After
entering into social contract, people submitted to their society and subsequently all their rights
are under the contract, and only permitted rights are what Rousseau called the General Will
(Law). The ultimate power is absolute, but not the state, which rules the society. Each entity is,
therefore, a sovereign being that constitutes the entire sovereign community. In other terms,
individuals are always free to depend on some other person rather than themselves in relation to
the contract they have entered into with society. After the social contract, the developed
government relies solely on the citizens. This means that the persons chosen to be responsible,
in the interest of the whole community, for the execution of the objectives of the common law
(the General Will) for collective security. Everyone is regarded as a principle of himself and
not of government in the social contract of society. Laskar (2013) also noted that Rousseau's
point is that individuals have little ability to rule themselves and hence the need to constitute an
agency that will enforce the social contract, and that the entity placed in place is not a social
contract entity and that the society has the right to ask the reasons for failure to implement
social contract agreements that exclude the government. In particular, Rousseau's main political
ideas can be further clarified by analyzing his study of inequality. Democracy and freedom of
life, autonomy, civil society, private property institutions, individual liberty, and the general
will.
 4

Rousseau Concept of Inequality

Rousseau illustrated injustice by illustrating how, after mixing in society, people who
were normally in good health and almost equal to each other suddenly became intelligent,
highly unequal and sickly evil. Shaapera (2015) argued that contemporary society's greatest
concern was that it was incredibly deficient in fact. Human beings had the potential to be ideal
in order to arise from the state of nature, but imbalances between needs and means of fulfilling
them were generated over time and through society. The desire for needs was thus multiplied
by humanity. It also increased the inability to meet the needs that made man highly unequal and
unhappy in civilized society. Therefore, as per Rousseau, society was corrupt and wrong,
portraying made-made disparities.

Sovereignty, Freedom and Independence of Life

Rousseau argued that resting power with the citizens who make up society and fostering
the right of a person to depend on some other body such as government is the universal
obedience to the General Will. Remarkably, the entity is thus free before the state of nature in
the same way. In particular, Rousseau's state of nature, unlike Hobbes, assured the quality of
life intended for citizens. In the state of nature, human beings were ultimately not constrained
by artificial problems because human equality for men began to reason and contributed to
unevenness in the state of nature in the process. The lives of others were endangered by certain
groups of people and this required the need for an organized society referred to as the state.
Therefore, a person gains independence and freedom of life from the presence of absolute
sovereignty present in an organized society (Putterman, 2010). The 'common sovereignty, as
noted by Rousseau, is inalienable and indivisible because individuals cannot forfeit their
ultimate right to self-government that can determine their fate at will. Each individual is
obligated to enhance the general good and to will.

Social equality Advocacy

Rousseau, according to Shapeera (2015), supported approximate social equality rather

than absolute equality. Two kinds of inequality were allowed by Rousseau. The first is the
inherent inequality between the poor and the powerful, the young and the old, the small and the
tall, the dumb and the smart, etc. The second is the disparity of benefits arising from honoring
 5

those who have performed exceedingly well for society. Rousseau asserted that social
differences that exist in society are not part of those that he approved. Rajagopal (2016) pointed
out that social inequality is caused by artificial equal opportunities. For the reason that it causes
social inequality, Rousseau dismissed the differences in ability. Instead, he clarified how
people take advantage of each other to achieve the greatest level. Accordingly, because of their
unscrupulous business practices they used, the wealthy and influential became richer and not
because they were gifted or talented than the rest. They have often taken advantage of other
individuals to gain their position of privilege. Rousseau disapproved of this form of social
injustice and advocated social equity as a form of opportunity-based equality.

Institution of Private Property Concept

According to Rousseau, in contrast to civil society, life in the state of nature was
advantageous because the institutionalization of property rights reduced the self-sufficiency
that prevailed in the state of nature. Accordingly, the majority of civil society suffered hardship
and only a few gained. This suggests that the object of the social contract for people to enter
into a civil society was to adequately protect property and to favor a few and not for general
protection and to save life. Rousseau thus described how land, the key cause of inequality and
moral corruption, could be used as a tool for private dominance (Shapeera, 2015). Property
then had to be controlled in civil society by the General Will.

The civil society

Rousseau dismissed the conviction of the Enlightenment in the development of

mankind through technology and science with respect to civil society. Shapeera (2015) found
that Rousseau believed that, for the reason that continued decadence measured in the form of
human unhappiness is the fact prevailing in most modern societies, culture and technology did
not amount to moral change.

General Will and Individual Liberty Concept

The idea that social contract, the individual and society were complemented was
advanced by Rousseau. The just society under the authority of General Will will, therefore,
transform the individual into an immortalized human person who is also not under needless
dependency or dominance. A individual is free, but chained in all directions, in Rousseau's
 6

view. There is a need for an organized society to work for the interests of the general rather
than the citizen. The autonomy enjoyed by a person in the state of nature will be considered a
fact if "General Will" regulates and manages the right kind of society. It is with this General
that the basis for all laws that regulate the human being is created. Rousseau also found out that
the persecution of others implied civil liberties. To put it in perspective, Okolie & Nweke
(2015) found that it is the right of another person's unplanned will to obey. Consequently,
Rousseau concluded that it is advisable to follow one's will if one has to be free. Each citizen
should be a lawmaker to maximize freedom (Putterman, 2010). Rousseau then noted that
democracy must be participatory and consensual for the Free State. The "Public Will" will then
be established in the legislative assembly. Rousseau claimed that the "Executive Will" could
not be replaced by the "Public Will," thereby affirming the Legislature's dominance.

Legislature Role in Political Ideas

According to the government of Rousseau, the self-governing entity in the body polity
is an individual acting on behalf of General Will (Law). As such, the legislature plays a major
role in every republic's progress (Shaapera, 2012). The legislature was the one that produced
individuals intended to legislate the General Will during the earliest republics. In that the
legislature introduced legislation with people's backing and the role of the legislature would be
to change human nature and transform people and change the constitution in order to support it
for the good of the whole society.

Jean Jacques Rousseau verses John Locke

Jean Rousseau and John Locke are well known for their literature on the foundation of
the society, evolution of humanity into civilisation and legality of central power over
individuals. The two philosophers had one theme on the Social Contract. On one hand Locke
tried to justify the emergence of political authority and on the other hand, Rousseau advanced
the notion that the most appropriate way is to form a civil society. Nevertheless, the two
philosophers have similar and differing opinions on the social contract. For instance, while both
advocated for elected parliament, Locke contradicted Rousseau on representative legislature.
The reason for this is that Locke does not promote direct democracy in relation to social
contract unlike Rousseau.
 7

Despite having divergent views on the understanding of state of nature, both Rousseau
and Locke have common approaches on reasons and process of evolution from state of nature
to civil society. Both are in agreement on the state of nature that it eventually transited into
Hobbesian style state of war that led to the formation of society managed from a central
authority through a contract. In Locke’s perspective, the evolution from savageness to
civilisation, rise of corruption through humanly greediness and the invention of money had
transformed mankind in many ways leading to the necessity of the establishment of common
wealth managed from central authority (Thomas, 2013). Rousseau observed that the discovery
of metallurgy and agriculture brought specialization, the equality of men and made people
become competitive (Rousseau, 2018). Locke viewed the evolution of humanity into
civilization as commendable process while Rousseau dismissed it by that it diminishes human
race (Rousseau, 2018). Rousseau also on the same thoughts claimed that the process has a
consequence of producing the first ever-political society through a social contract and as a
result would lead to the oppression of the poor by the rich. During this period, the oppressed
want to escapes the violence attributed to warfare but in the process fails to get a workable
solution and eventually made by the oppressor (the rich) to consent to primitive authority for a
shared protection for their life and property. The end results yields the weak “new fetters,” and
at the same time provide the oppressor (the rich) new forces. It is this initial contract which is
demoralizing that destroys natural liberty and put in place the law of inequality (Thomas,
2013). According to Rousseau, the first contractors subjected people to misery, servitude and
labor in pursuit of profits that benefited a few. This notion was disputed by Locke by stating
that the situation created due to social contract was not intended to bring misery and desolation.
The reason for this was that life is no longer simple compare to the state of nature and the
standard of living has improved dramatically.

Although, the initial contract is admittedly a fraud, particularly in the Second

Discourse, carried out by the rich on the poor, the invention of metallurgy and agriculture
offered people the freedom to acquire as much as possible and in the process lead to inequality
hence making people rich and poor. Accordingly making people get out of primitive constraints
and significantly improved their standard of living. Locke further argued that even the weakest
and poorest people are privileged to curtained good. In this regard, Locke would reluctantly
like to be dragged into pre-history times, unlike Rousseau who would like to go back to
 8

“middle state”, a status where human beings are still savages although they are privileged with
good quality life compared to earlier times (Muldoon, 2016). Nevertheless, the two thinkers
understand there is no going back.

Contrary to the initial contract where the poor were subjects of the rich, Rousseau in his
later literature expounded on the social contract, which matched with the writings of Locke on
social contract. Both philosophers conceded that the original state could no long remain the
way it was. According to Locke, it cannot exist for three reasons: men have vested interest
hence inhibit the usage natural law, resistance may happen to punishment and lack of neutral
judges (Thomas, 2013). The description of Rousseau is not so different and according to him,
men at one point face obstacles which can be hinder the maintenance of state of nature and
consequently make human race to perish if something significant is not done to save the
situation (Rousseau, 2012). Both have similar solution on social contract but their first
submissions differ significantly. Locke started by seeking to respond as to why men give their
freedom away and subjects themselves to domination to others. Rousseau started by responding
to the reasoning that men have to remain free and independent and subjects themselves to the
control of community (Rousseau, 2012). In the Second Treatise of Government, the concern for
Locke is about safeguarding justice among men. He put a lot of emphasis on freedom and
individual liberty which dismally compares to Rousseau’s works (On the Social Contract).

Basically, Rousseau advocated a situation where freedom and liberty of people are
unrestricted despite submitting to a central authority. Rousseau wanted to find a way of having
social cooperation and at the same time leaving each person free and independent the same way
they were before agreeing of civil society. The social contract as per Rousseau is not a
historical event but a hypothetical construction aimed at providing solution to freedom
(Rousseau, 2018). However, Locke argued slightly different. He stated that the government is
lesser to the public good and has only preservation and is not permitted to enslave destroy or
impoverish the subjects (Thomas, 2013). Locke is less concerned about Rousseau on the
preservation of individual freedom in regard to explaining what constitute common-wealth.
Individual liberty in regard to common wealth is not important to Locke unlike Rousseau. This
does not mean that Locke is not concerned with the preservation of individual rights. To
expound on these thoughts, the subsequent paragraphs will analyse what constitute the social
 9

contract and the view of Locke on Rousseau’s arguments in regard to the law making process,
limits of sovereignty, consent issue, rule of majority, property, sacrificing natural liberty etc.

Law making process

Locke and Rousseau are in agreement with notion that to have a social compact, each
person ought to give away all his right with the intention of making everyone equal in the
society ((Rousseau, 2018). In this way, Rousseau argued that that freedom of each person is
sacred since by submitting to himself to all, each individual is submitting to no one. And as
such there is no person in society who can become subservient to any arbitrary will despite
handing over all the power to a political community (Rousseau, 2018). On the other hand,
Locke also had the same assessment in regard to social contract. He argued that those who are
willing to enter civil society ought to surrender two things. Everyone has to surrender the
unrestricted freedom they had in the state of nature. The other thing is that the right to instill
discipline is surrendered to the central authority (Thomas, 2013). However, the two thinkers
differ in the way individual rights are surrendered to the society. According to Rousseau, each
person have to initiate the law in order to automatically regarded as equal member of the
society and that no one is supposed to abuse political power by enacting laws that are injurious
to others but beneficial to oneself. For the reason that individuals are governed by the laws they
make, they maintain their status as was in the state of nature. In other words, a person is free by
obeying his own rules. Rousseau affirms that since everyone in society is equal through total
alienation, no one would try to pass laws that will endanger their liberty (Rousseau, 2018).
Nevertheless, Locke argued that laws are the creation of the majority. Given that the will of
majority may contradict with that of the minority, the legislations are banned from being
avenues of exploitations by individuals.

Gaps and mistakes in Rousseau’s works

In his social contract law, Rousseau was not aware of the fact that the unfettered
authority of the General Will could lead to a society of absolutism. The old age believes that
authority corrupts, and it has the potential to utterly corrupt when there is total power. Again,
critics have said that to say that the general will with the interest of all is always not the
'concerned will' of society and that it is always correct (Masters, 2015). It is worth noting that
there is no certainty that the will of society will prevail and serve the common good. There is
 10

negligible variation between the 'Common Will and' the 'will of all.' Since man came into
being, he has shown selfishness and, before considering the needs of others, will think about
himself first. Specifically, Rousseau's social contract was criticized for being ahistorical, much
as Hobbes and Locke were criticized. The theory does not take the chronology of events in
human lives and history into account. History clearly does not account for life, and Rousseau's
thoughts on the state of nature are too idealistic, utopian, and unrealizable, as are the other
thinkers, Hobbes and Locke, to state the least. Shapeera (2015) noted that the principle of the
contract is faulty as the basis for political authority. It is not only based on historical
documents, but also on historical evidence available to illustrate the impossibility of primitive
conditions.

Rousseau's theories were often considered illogical, by claiming that political

consciousness could be realized in people who are in a structured society within people living
in a state of nature. The theory is also dangerous in its practicality, since it can lead to anarchy
because adequate authority can be absent when there are disagreements between the general
will and the will of the individual. The state and its institutions are seen as a product of
individual will, according to Apparadorai (1974), and as such they will not have adequate
authority when they question individual will. This may, therefore, cause a situation of
lawlessness. The social contract theory as advanced by Rousseau is still valid, despite its flaws.
Rousseau is still the originator of the concepts and the reason for the state's existence that the
state should serve.

Conclusions

In summary, the social contract as Jean Jacques Rousseau explains is based on what he
termed as the state of nature. In the era of state of nature, good life and freedom of life was
given until the time the establishment of private property which was viewed as the source of
injustices. That was the time when man decided to have an organized society ruled by the law
to safeguard the lives and property of mankind. According to Rousseau, property was the
source of moral corruption and injustice in society. However, Rousseau observed that property
must be controlled by the General Will, which is a universal will that is supposed to safeguard
the interests, freedom and liberty of a person in a civilized society. According to Rousseau,
individual liberty and freedom produces the greatest good which is practical when individuals
 11

cease to depend on one another unless they adhere to the General Will. Rousseau’s
understanding on liberty was that it is driven by public participation and popular sovereignty.
Accordingly, the state and the individual were sovereign and were made to attain a just society
and political order. The social contract theory was a moral being that is supposed to preserve
the welfare of the society as well as its constituents’ parts. The social contract was also the
basis for all was put in place that guided how people in society should conduct themselves.

In contemporary society, the social contract theory has gained prominence in various
ways. It is the foundation of today’s sovereignty since it has to be approved by the majority.
The theory is also the foundation of democracy as well as the toppling of dictatorship
governments. The social contract theory is also the initiator of the direct legislation and the
prevailing referendum conducted across nations for particular issues. The analyses of Rousseau
on the private property shed some insights on the major cases of injustices and corruption is
modern society.
 12

References

Laskar, M. (2013). Summary of social contract theory by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Locke
and Rousseau (April 4, 2013).

Masters, R. D. (2015). The political philosophy of Rousseau. Princeton University Press.

Mossoff, A. (2012). Saving Locke from Marx: The labor theory of value in intellectual property
theory. Social Philosophy and Policy, 29(2), 12-02.

Muldoon, R. (2016). Social contract theory for a diverse world: Beyond tolerance. Taylor &
Francis.

Muldoon, R. (2016). Social contract theory for a diverse world: Beyond tolerance. Taylor &
Francis.

Okolie, C. N., & Nweke, v. c. (2015). The plausibility and challenges of cosmopolitanism as a
contemporary theory in social and political philosophy.

Putterman, E. (2010). Rousseau, Law and the Sovereignty of the People. Cambridge University
Press.

Rajagopal, K. (2016). Learning from Deconstructing Poverty in the Shadow of Gandhian Social
Theory. Contributions to Alternative Concepts of Knowledge, 4, 151.

Rousseau, J. J. (2012). Rousseau: The Basic Political Writings: Discourse on the Sciences and
the Arts, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Discourse on Political Economy, On the
Social Contract, The State of War. Hackett Publishing.

Rousseau, J. J. (2018). Rousseau: The Social Contract and other later political writings.
Cambridge University Press.

Rousseau, J. J. (2018). Rousseau: The Social Contract and other later political writings.
Cambridge University Press.

Shaapera, S. A. (2012). Theories of the state: perspectives on the Nigerian variant. European
Scientific Journal, 8(20).
 13

Shaapera, S. A. (2015). Evaluating the social contract theoretical ideas of Jean Jacques
Rousseau: An analytical perspective on the state and relevance to contemporary society.
African Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 9(2), 36-41.

Thomas, D. L. (2013). Routledge philosophy guidebook to Locke on government. Routledge.

Williams, D. L. (2014). Rousseau's social contract: An introduction. Cambridge University

Press.