To understand the origin and nature of governance, we can trace back to the concepts of the state of nature, social contract, and Rousseau’s General Will.
The state of nature is a philosophical concept that is used to describe a hypothetical world without governments or organized society.
It is a condition without laws or institutions, where the innate nature of humans and their characteristics dictate how they interact with one another. This idea was famously developed by Thomas Hobbes.
It was later reinterpreted by thinkers like Locke and Rousseau. Their interpretations differ in their views of human nature, the state of nature, and the reasons for creating a social contract.
In the modern context, the state of nature can be analogous to situations of power instability or political vacuum, where absence of governance leads to disorder.
The social contract is also a philosophical concept that explains the legitimacy of governments and political authority as arising from either an implicit or explicit agreement between individuals to form a society, where they accept certain rules in exchange for safety and security.
In the modern context, it can be compared to collective agreements such as the adoption of the Indian Constitution, or global frameworks such as the Paris Agreement, IMF, where people/states voluntarily accept constraints and obligations to achieve discussed goals.
Let us first study Thomas Hobbes and Locke’s view explaining the same.
To put it briefly, Hobbes viewed humans from a pessimistic point of view, fundamentally driven by self-interest and power. Thus, people in the state of nature were prone to conflict — this led to competition, insecurity, and a fight for safety.
Finally, people came together in cooperation, surrendering a few rights to a sovereign authority in return for safety and security, creating a social contract.
Locke, on the other hand, argued that humans in the state of nature were rational, logical, and peacefully coexisted. However, since resources were limited, they came into conflict.
So, in order to ensure peace, security, and protect their natural rights of life, liberty, and property, they agreed to cooperate, forming a government through social contract.
Now let us study the development of Rousseau’s General Will.
Rousseau was critical of Hobbes’ and Locke’s view of human nature, as both of them depicted an image of a civilized man in a pre-civilized state of nature (Hobbes — man seeking power; Locke — man being rational).
Rousseau viewed man as a noble savage — good, amoral, guided by pity and compassion.
With the advent of reason — when man became civilized — he developed the feelings of mine and thine, and therefore private property.
The accumulation of private property introduced social inequality. This inequality destroyed the individual freedom to express innate goodness, leading to feelings of dissatisfaction, jealousy, and pride.
Thus, man voluntarily entered into a civil social contract, giving away rights and freedoms to an authority in order to protect property and maintain social order.
However, by doing so, it implicitly institutionalized inequality under the guise of peace and cooperation. In the process, civilized people used reason to justify the loss of political and personal liberty.
Thus, Rousseau says, “Men are born free, but he is everywhere in chains,” referring to the restrictions put upon man by structures of civil society like government, religion, etc. Within these structures, man is bound but is under an illusion and assumes that he is free.
Unlike Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau does not see the development of a civil society as a necessary advancement from the state of nature.
This brings us to Rousseau’s concept of General Will.
Rousseau distinguishes between Actual Will and Real Will. Actual Will is self-interested, and a sum of individual wills directed at private interests, whereas Real Will is more noble, based on reason, represents the collective interest of the people, and is aimed at the common good.
General Will is the total of all the Real Wills of individuals, based on reason and foresightedness.
Thus, for Rousseau, the true social contract, one which establishes moral liberty, is one in which people voluntarily consent to form an authority, obeying only those laws that they have prescribed by themselves, for themselves,legitimizing it through the General Will. It could be compared to modern-day Constitutions.
Expanding along this line of reasoning, Rousseau also believed that, “Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than he will be forced to be free.”
In other words, the constraints imposed by the General Will are not oppression but rather a deeper form of freedom — tantamount to modern-day law enforcing agencies.
Also, man’s freedom is relative, as he cannot endanger the freedom of another, and therefore must follow the law and General Will to maintain order (be forced to be free). This can be compared to the principle of rule of law.
Moreover, by giving up the rights under the social contract, it creates the same conditions for all, and as a result, equality. This is also reflected in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Most importantly, for Rousseau, sovereignty lies with the people and cannot be transferred or divided. The government or authority is distinct from the people (who are sovereign). For Rousseau, the government is merely an agent for carrying out the General Will of the people, and its legitimacy depends entirely on its reflection of this collective will.
If the government ceases to represent the General Will, the people have a right to challenge, reform, or replace them(as seen in modern day elections).
The people thus hold the government accountable by asserting their collective voices in accordance with the principles of the social contract.
The concept of General Willreflects the potential in the collective action of citizens driven by a shared sense of purpose and common good. Thusit is the people themselves who hold the power to shape the direction of governance, as it places a responsibility on the elected government to address the collective aspirations. We must, therefore, in today’s age realize the incumbent power within us and use it as intended.
Rousseau’s ideas and emphasis on the General Will and popular sovereignty also inspired revolutionaries of his time and had a direct impact, leading to the French Revolution. His ideas helped justify the abolition of absolute monarchy and the demand for a republic, reinforcing the power of collective will to drive change.
We can conclude that the power we possess collectively gives us the ability to shape our world for the common good.
~ Meyitir Imsong