Book’s Review: Social Contract by Jean Jacques Rousseau

Rousseau is one of dominant philosophical thinkers that associated with the “Social Contract”. His idea of social contract has significant effect to the society in general. His argument in the social contract has some differences with other thinkers such as Hobbes.
When Rousseau discusses about his ideas of social contract, he emphasizes the establishment human in society through association. He tries to make an explanation that how society is formed and established.

He comes with an idea that, people come together to establish a civil society by the social contract in order to benefits with one and another. He regards that the public concern is come first then the individual. His concept of social contract is differ from the Hobbes’s social contract when Hobbes regards that, people come to the social contract for sake of the own protection and preservation that resulted from the state of nature that a leader must take the responsibilities. As a result, Hobbes concept of social contract is absolute monarchy but Rousseau’s social contract rejects the concepts of absolute monarchy.

This is because; absolute monarchy will demolish public freedom and eliminate the power of people to govern. He stress that the decision making is only in the hand of people and these people have the rights to choose their decision in collective way. He also rejects the concept of slavery in people’s life. He also regards that, people come to the social contract because of the social instability for example, rights of property ownership and development of technologies. In avoiding this kind of in stability, people come to social contract.

In his Book 1, Rousseau advocates the concept of people’s sovereignty. This concept is dominant when he introduces the absolute sovereignty is undivided and unrepresented. He agrees that people’s sovereignty is preserved in one state by forming direct democracy. This is to ensure that; mutual consensus of governance is there. He tends to construct the people sovereignty in order to ensure the loyalty to the sovereign. He stress that if people live under their own consensus law and regulation, the freedom will be existed. If the law institution is not elected by the people and not able to bound the law, their freedom will be degenerated. However, the most lacking part of his concept of sovereignty is unclear category of community that has full sovereignty. He only describes about people living in conflict within the state of nature but at the same time, conflicts in community are differing by time and space.

People are also bound to the law although they do not give voice to the law. In addition to that, his description the essential of community than the individual is absolutely contrast to the definition of individual human rights that are practiced in modern states. The rationality of freedom when we live in the civil society is become crucial. He regards thing that distinguish people from animal is rationality of taking action. This rationality of taking action is more or less come from basic teaching of Islam when Islam regards one of the differences between human and animal is the using of reasons. Human has reasons during taking action but animal is not.
In the Book 2, he discuss about the rights and duties of the sovereign power and its limitations. He tries to give a full authority to the sovereign within the law that must be obeyed by the people. This sovereign authority is also should be free from any unrelated interference. Although during Rousseau’s time, the absolute monarch is practiced, but he disagrees with the concept of absolute monarch because it can demolish the freedom and liberty of people. On the other hand, his idea on social contract results to the question how people can live in the society but in same time they can maintain the rights of freedom. According to him, the sovereign power that formed and entrusted by people can ensure their freedom and liberty. In his ideal republic, people use the sovereign authority to gain what is called common good that can be found in general will. However, in absolute monarch, the interest is accordance the will of monarch or the king. Rousseau disagrees with the private interest that state should pursue general will to preserve the freedom of people. He enriches and encourages the interest of the common good as a whole rather than the private interest. In contrast, his idea of general will is differ with the modern states that are usually based on the private or own interest.
The other thing is important of his social contract is the formation and establishment of the law as described by him on his social contract. Initially, he assumes that, if people are restrained by the law, their freedom is missing. In order to resolve this problem, he suggests that, the law must be formed by people decision making, so the law is in the hand of people. The law must be based on the mutual agreement to maintain the freedom and liberty of the people in society. He believes that, the good government is that, when people abide by the rules and regulations that can be better benefited to them. However, he does not have any mechanism to form the law in the proper manner. As a result, some restrictions those come from the law. This is to ensure that, the law will be interpreted for the common good that formed by the people itself.
The, he also give the different types of people who differ from time and space that need different types of law. His social contract also highlights the law that applicable in general to function as a whole. Besides that, the important of liberty and equity should be maintained in a political association. He asserts that the maintaining of good balancing between the size of the state and the number of people is in order to avoid conflict. Hence the applicable law can be applied and implemented accordance to the balance of the state. The preservation of the common good of the state can be achieved by dividing the law into three types of law: political law, civil law, criminal law and moral and customs. This division of law according to him is somehow is supported by the sovereign people.
In his Book 3, it shuffles from the theoretical part to the practical part of the state. This practical part of the state advocates the governance of the state. He found that, the practical part of the state is about how the governance of the state that deal with the bodies of the government. The bodies of government for example, magistrate can use its authority to interfere in some cases related to the state. Sovereign to him is differing with the government in which it can be explained through force and right. He also explains the republic or state in term of mathematical angle but it tends to be unrealistic because there is not precise variable for the political authority to be legitimate. According to him, the measurement of the strong government does not depend on the size of the government. It is can be clear when he assumes that the smaller state is more powerful than the other bigger state. This is because the general will is applicable within the small group of the people. His idea and theory of the smaller state is more powerful than the other bigger state is maybe true if this idea apply to the modern state today, for example, Singapore, as a small state is stronger than bigger state, Indonesia in term of the political stability.
After that, Rousseau divides states into three main categories: democracy, aristocracy and monarchy, but according to him, the most stable government is aristocracy type in which the skilled of magistrates will serve and apply their duties as a legitimate executive power. The problem with the democracy is that, direct democracy. This is because the executive and legislative power in direct democracy seems to be ambiguous. On the other hand, the failure of the monarchy is that, the kind of monarch is not regarded as a representative to the whole people for the common good and finally, the monarch makes the decision based on his will and own interest. Furthermore, he cannot represent the interest of people as a whole. This type of government can be corrupted by the monarch itself. As a result, the general will cannot be applied to the state. Although he suggests that, the most stable of government is aristocracy, but in some extent, this type of government is not always stable and applicable form of government. That is why mixed of these types of government maybe applicable when democracy is suitable for the smaller state and the monarchy is suitable for the lager state.
Besides, he discusses some important thing about governmental assembly. He asserts that the assembly that must be taken part in the governmental related is very crucial. Some of the matter of the state according to this assembly will be solved by sitting and participating in that particular assembly. In order to ensure that the general will exists, people must present in the assembly to make sure that the government action is not contradict with people interest and the common good can be still exists. His idea of assembly is somehow similar of some characteristic of democracy takes part in the modern state. For example, Britain implements House of Representative and House of Lord in his assembly and Malaysia has Upper House and Lower House. His idea of governmental assembly tries to ensure that the people needs are accountable and transparent by the state should be maintained. The sovereignty of the people can be decreased without appearance of the people in the assembly and finally, general will cannot be implemented and executed. So, his idea is somehow emphasizing that the sovereignty cannot be represented in any types of conditions. It is to ensure that the freedom and liberty of people can still exist. People have their own incentive in order to make sure that their sovereignty is well maintained. Furthermore, the survival of the social contract is still valid by having enthusiasm. If they are not interested, their civil freedom cannot be preserved. The government exists by the law but not by the social contract while the magistrate of the government is represented as officers but not the rulers who have legitimate authority.

Next, the general will according to Rousseau is to advocate the common good of people that sticks the best for all as represented by the sovereign. It is absolutely differ with the individual will that intent to advocate the individual interest. He believes that, an healthy state, people realized with the public concern as a whole for their best and benefits. Conversly, an unhealthy state is when it tries to make its own interest to become primer while the common good is secondary part of it. As a result, the state abandon the general will for the best of all. It is also important discuss what Rousseau terms as popular vote. People have to vote when they feel that their vote will be regarded as an advantage to the state and general will.

Although it is contradict with their own interest, the common good for the best for all is still become a crucial goal for them. Finally, people vote toward the assembly is for the sake of the civil good that should be preserved. However, Rousseau do not give any mechanism that how people can recognize or be the decisive factor for their general will that can lead to the ambiguity of determining that particular general will. In an unhealthy state, the particular will is become more important than the general will itself that can cause a huge distinction between these two types of will and in some extent the conclusion can be made that the election is failed to look whether the general will is expressible or not to that state.

When he introduce that “tribunate” as a body outside from the legislative and executive power, it indicates that state still need a free body to ensure the security of the law made by the sovereign’s people. In addition to that, he also suggests that, the establishment of other body, namely “censorship” in which it can act as a mediator between government and public opinion. This kind of bodies is somehow to provide check and balance for the state in order to ensure the integrity of people living in the state. In my point of view, the establishment of these two bodies is similar of what German’s country has today, which is called, Ombudsman. The duties and responsibilities of the Ombudsman of the German’s country is similar and more or less same of what “tribunate’ and “censorship” have to carry their responsibilities. From this, the continuity of the common good will is promoted as a whole part of system of the state.

In the last topic that Rousseau discuss on his social contract is what we call civil religion. This idea of civil religion is to bound between tradition and people in public. Then, it is an idea that holds the precede idea and the belief of people in society. After making relation between these two thing, he concludes that, Christianity is somehow cannot be replaced by any race’s religion. His idea of civil religion is about making people to become an obedient and loyal follower but at the same time, people’s productive is still valid there. However in the time of the separation of religion and state, any effort to combine between these two things can be faced some difficulties.

In conclusion, among the most important principles of social contract in this book is about the general will that can ensure people or citizen in the society to have political rights and duties towards their sovereign state.

After analyzing Rousseau’s social contract and general will in particular, there are some communist and socialist states that have some similar characteristics with the general will introduced by him. For example, Republic of Cuba. This kind of state can be considered that having some concept of general will in its constitution. This kind of state has some articles in its constitution that can be an indicator for the general will. For instance, in Article 1, it emphasis the solidarity of human for political freedom that sovereign has for the good of all.


Then, it also discuss about assembly of state that belong to the people’s power in which recognized by law in the Article 2. These two basic concepts stated in Cuba’s constitution are somehow similar in what general will is about. It is clearer that when state carries out of the will of people by preserving the sovereignty of the state and coming to guarantee the power of the people and for the people that recognized in the constitution. It is become dominant when the constitution emphasis the context of the whole of society that represents people in the bodies of the state, official and so on.

In order to preserve the common good, this constitution ensures the all people have their equal duties and right towards the state. In the Article 69, the constitution recognized that, the highest body of the state power can be expressed to the sovereign will of the people is through “The National Assembly of People’s Power”. This national assembly may be regarded as works as collective leadership. Although this constitution is more or less same what Rousseau suggests in the general will, but it has one important difference between this constitution and general will. In Article 21, it clearly states that, the ownership of people is guaranteed by the state. Hence, this constitution emphasizes the important of individuals aim for particular interest. However, in general will, the common good is become the aim of the will when people have to sacrifice their own interest for the sake of the best interest for all citizens.

In conclusion, general will introduced by Rousseau is still valid in the modern state when some states now still practicing what we call some basic principles of the general will in their legitimate constitution. The idea of social contract is somehow advocating the formulating and establishing of state in order to ensure that the state continue practicing freedom and liberty for the citizen.