Student no.

: 742517

Why Rousseau developed the theory of popular sovereignty

History of Political Thought

STUDY MATERIAL FOR B.A. PART 111 BY

Dr. Arvind Adityaraj

Professor & Ex. Head

Department of Political Science

College od Commerce, Arts and Science, Patna

Rousseau states, in writing The Social Contract (1762) is to ‘inquire whether in civil

order there can be some legitimate and sure rule of administration, taking men as they are,

and laws as they can be’ (Rousseau, 1994, p.45). In this inquiry, he produced a radical notion

of what was required for political right and legitimacy, and what sovereignty could actually

mean. In order to explore Rousseau’s theory of popular sovereignty there must be a

conceptualisation of what popular sovereignty is. Rousseau uses the term ‘sovereign’ as a

label for the person holding the supreme power in a state. This confirms the fundamental

notion of sovereignty: that a sovereign has absolute and inalienable power overs its subjects

(Rousseau, 1994, Book 1, Chapter 6). However, Rousseau’s definition marks a radical break

as he argues the only way people can be subjected to a sovereign power without losing their

freedom is if they are the sovereign power. Rousseau’s concept of the people as sovereign

requires participation, with the direction of state being decided by what Rousseau terms ‘the

general will’. Thus, it can be argued that Rousseau develops a theory of popular sovereignty.

Popular sovereignty is the belief that the legitimacy of the state is created by the consent, or

the will of its people. As such, the people are the source of all political power (Tarcov, 1986,

1
 Student no.: 742517

p.1426). To fully understand Rousseau’s concept of popular sovereignty it must be taken in

the context of his earlier writing and political theory and rulership during the eighteenth

century.

The theory of popular sovereignty Rousseau develops in The Social Contract has

precedent in Rousseau’s earlier writing. In the Discourse on Inequality (1755), for example.

Rousseau traced the moral decay of man in society. This decay was due to the contrast

between the state of nature, in which man had at least the potential for good, and the social

state, which led man to tyranny and inequality. Rousseau’s pessimism regarding the state left,

however, fundamental questions unanswered: were these evils inevitable in all societies in all

periods of time? As we shall see, the arguments developed in The Social Contract answered

these questions with some optimism, putting forward a state that was beneficial and just.

However, this optimism was fragile as the threats to such a state were ‘persistent and

ubiquitous’ (Betts, 1994, [Link]).

Rousseau’s theory of popular sovereignty was also influenced by the political context,

in particular the absolute monarchy that defined the relationship between rulers. This

standard view, even as late as 1762, was that a King had a divine right to rule, a right that was

seen as the origin and basis of social organisation (Betts, 1994). In The Social Contract,

Rousseau rejected such a model of sovereignty. H argued: ‘no man has any natural authority

over his fellowmen’ (Rousseau, 1994, p.49). He rejected the idea of a paternal relationship

between subject and ruler (where ‘the ruler corresponds to the father, and the people to the

children’ (1994, p.49)). As such a relationship between ruler and ruled was not legitimate on

natural grounds, then political authority and power must be perpetuated by force; the weak

must be subservient to the strong. However, Rousseau argued ‘force doesn’t create right

and… legitimate powers are the only ones we are obliged to obey’ (Rousseau, 1994, p.46).

2
 Student no.: 742517

This has lead to the association of Rousseau’s ideas with social contract philosophers,

such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Social contract theory maintains that society is

based on a contract or binding agreement. Unlike the Divine Right of Kings, legitimate

political rule is not based directly on a divine or natural title to rule, but must be ratified by

the consent of the ruled (Gourevitch, 1997, p. xv). In regards to contractual theory, in the

contractual tradition, the binding agreement was either a contract of submission, whereby an

existing social group agrees under certain condition to submit to a ruler, or else the simple

contract of association, by which a number of people organize themselves into a group of

society without sacrificing their rights or their autonomy. Contract theory favoured absolute

monarchy, interpreting the contract as a contract of submission, in which the subjects

consented to be ruled (Betts, 1994, [Link]). Whilst Rousseau may have been influenced by the

basic concepts and methods of his predecessors, he fiercely opposed their conclusions. As we

shall see, Rousseau’s ideas about the power of the general means that his ideas marked a

radical break with political thought in the eighteenth century.

Thus far, we have seen that concepts of the state, sovereign and source of legitimate

authority in the eighteenth century were at odds with any concept of popular sovereignty, as

the ruler was the source of all political power. Rousseau believed that ‘men have reached the

point at which the obstacles to their survival in the state of nature overpower each

individual’s resources for maintaining himself in that state’ (Rousseau, 1994, p.54). As such,

people needed to combine forces, as the people combined would mean they had power

enough to deal with such ‘obstacles’. What was needed for legitimate political order was ‘a

form of association that will bring the whole common force to bear on defending and

protecting each associate’s persons and goods’ whilst simultaneously ‘man obeys himself and

remains as free as before’ (Rousseau, 1994, p.54).

3
 Student no.: 742517

The question that this raises, however, is how people can bind themselves to one

another and combine forces yet still preserve their freedom? Essentially, in The Social

Contract Rousseau asserts that an individual must surrender himself and all his rights to the

wider community. Each person ‘puts his person and all his power under the supreme

direction of the general will, and in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an

indivisible part of the whole’ (Rousseau, 1994, p.54). The members of this association thus

transform themselves from a group of isolated individuals into a community with a common

will or interest and, as we shall explore in more detail, it is this will that decides the direction

of the state. From this community, people receive its common identity; its unity, its life and

its will. Rousseau terms this a ‘people’ or ‘body politic’. When this ‘body politic’ is active it

is a ‘sovereign’ (Rousseau, 1994, p.56). Thus, this is popular sovereignty: Rousseau asserts

in Book II (1994) that the sovereign is the source of all power, inalienable and indivisible.

The sovereign is made up, however, of individuals who have given up their autonomy to be

part of this community with a common will. Therefore, the defining feature of political right

and legitimacy is in the people, a fundamental feature of popular sovereignty. This mutual

surrender of individualism, and the transformation of corporate entity in a single will

(fundamentally, the transformation of the many into one) is where the radical force of

Rousseau’s logic lies (Betts, 1994, [Link]).

If such a social contact is to preserve freedom then the clauses of the contract must be

the same everywhere and everywhere tacitly accepted and recognised. In doing this, and in

conceiving of ourselves as members of our political community, Gourevitch argues we

undergo a ‘moral and psychological change’ (1997, [Link]). We pass from the state of nature,

where we are governed by instinct, into civil society, where justice is now the rule of

conduct. However, if the rules of society are established on the basis of what is good for the

sovereign, then the people obey only rules thy have prescribed and so enjoy ‘moral freedom’.

4
 Student no.: 742517

This is a fundamentally democratic notion as human beings are treated as moral agents, as

their laws are self-legislated. However, Rousseau’s arresting rhetoric for those who refuse to

obey the general will, the idea they will be ‘forced to be free’ (1994, p.58), disguises the main

point: even those who do not wish to obey the laws will be protected by them.

Having defined the sovereign, Rousseau argues sovereignty cannot be transferred or

divided. As such, the sovereign must be the source of all political power. This also involves

the people acting together to use authority to gain what is best for all. This supports a theory

of popular sovereignty: in a popular sovereignty power is established through the will of the

people. It should be noted, however, that to be general a will need not always be unanimous,

but every vote must be counted. As we will see, the power to enact the will may be

transmitted but not the will itself. This is because a particular will always tends towards

favouritism or partiality, whilst the general will tends towards equality. If the populace is

forced to obey a particular will, then it is no longer a sovereign as there are now obligations

to consent to that which isn’t for the good of the sovereign, or the people as a whole. In the

case of absolute monarchy, for example, sovereign authority is expressed in the will of the

King.

Rousseau also argues the will cannot be divided as the sovereign always expresses the

will of the people as a whole. This has been an error of political theorists in the past, who

have divided it according to its object, for example ‘into force and will; into legislative power

and executive power; into rights of taxation’ (Rousseau, 1994, p.65). If the sovereign cannot

be divided how will laws be enacted and enforced? And does the theory support a notion of

popular sovereignty? Rousseau draws a distinction between sovereign on one hand and

government or Prince on the other. In line with popular sovereignty, the sovereign people

promulgate and ratify laws. However, if the sovereign is to remain indivisible then they

cannot or ought not to implement them (Rousseau, 1997, Book III). If the sovereign does not

5
 Student no.: 742517

remain indivisible then it is destroyed. Public force, therefore, requires a suitable agent of the

general will to serve as a manner in the public person. This is the function of government: a

minister of the sovereign. A government is, therefore, the ‘intermediate body established

between the subjects and the sovereign for their mutual correspondence, charged with the

execution of the laws and with the maintenance of political and civil liberty’ (Rousseau,

1997, p.82). As it is merely the minister of the sovereign, the sovereign should regularly call

the government into account and review its mandate (Rousseau, 1997 p. 18). This idea

supports a theory of popular sovereignty, as it puts power ultimately in the hands of the

people, despite the enactment of power being done through an intermediary.

The government is however, distinct from the sovereign, and the people exercise their

sovereignty through meeting in regular, periodic assemblies (Rousseau, 1997, Book III,

Chapter 14). The objective of such meetings is ‘the maintenance of the social treaty’.

Attendance at these assemblies is necessary for the health of the state and for the general will

of the people to be heard.

Thus, in The Social Contract it is clear Rousseau develops a theory that has much in

common with a definition of popular sovereignty. In engaging in the proposed social

contract, ‘each of us places his person and his power in common under the supreme direction

of the general will’ (Rousseau, qtd. in Critchley, 2001, p.6) and in doing so, the people

constitute a sovereign. The notion of sovereign here is consistent with a sovereign in other

methods of rulership, such as an absolute monarchy. The crucial difference is that the people,

not a King or government, are the sovereign, and thus can submit to a sovereign’s power

without losing their freedom. The general will is established by voting. Thus, the social

contract realises human beings as autonomous moral agents who achieve freedom through

legislating for themselves as citizens. What Rousseau develops is a theory for a society

6
 Student no.: 742517

whose citizens have political rights, which is self-sufficient and where the people have an

active political voice.

Bibliography

Critchley, Peter, The Rational Freedom of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (2001).

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, The Social Contract and other late political writings edited by
Victor Gourevitch, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (1997).

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, The Social Contract, translated by Christopher Betts, Oxford,

Oxford University Press (1999).

Tarcov, Nathan, ‘Popular Sovereignty (in Democratic Political Theory)’, Encyclopedia of the
American Constitution vol. 3, p. 1426, (1986).