Hochschule Bremen, Konfliktmanagement
Internationaler Studiengang Politikmanagement
SS06

A comparison of the notion democracy and general will by
the means of the theorists Jean-Jacques Rousseau
and Anthony Downs

by: Rike Sohn

 

Introduction

Since the emergency of democracies various theories concerning different kinds of democracy have been developed. They rank from representatives forms to radical direct ones and focus on various, different aspects of the topic. The key political questions for analyzing democracy are: What are the requirements for democracy? How should be the process of formation of political will and who should be involved? Is there something like a general will? What is the nature of the relationship between citizens and their elected representatives? And how should society program the state?¹ In the following discussion paper these questions will be pointed out by the means of theorists of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) and Anthony Downs (born 1930). Explaining their whole theory would have led too far, therefore only their position related to these issues will be presented. In a final reflection both points of view will be compared and evaluated.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

The term general will or ‘volonté génerale’ stems from Rousseau himself. He first defined and mentioned it. The aim of the general is the common good. The general will has to be seen in contrast to the will of all (volonté de tous). Will of all means the sum of the people’s particular interests and private needs is considered. If from these differing wills the most deviated are taken away the general will remains; due to the fact that every particular will normally contains also an interest for the public good.² The general will is filtered out through the free expression of statements, discussion, formation of political volition and voting of all people which have a high expertise due to the clear and perfect information about the topic and decide just and virtuous.

Rousseau considers partial associations as a threat to the general will. Instead of as many wills as there are people, there would then be as many wills as there are associations. And if one of these associations gets so strong that it can dominate the others the found compromise would no more be the image of the general will but the image of the particular prevailed will. Associations influence, filter and disturb the decision-making process and therefore should be abolished. But as Rousseau knows that this is impossible, he prefers that in the case that there are associations that there should be as many and as equal as possible.³

All this has to be seen in the context of the social contract, written down 1762 in Rousseau’s book ‘Du contract social’. The social contract contains the total alienation of each associate together with all his individual rights to the Community and thus under the leadership of the general will. State and society should form a unity. This unity is based on a social contract to which all people voluntarily agreed. The contract is just because all people are treated equally and it is functional because it ensures the common good, as well as the existence and liberty of each individual. On a closer examination this shows the inseparability of the social contract and the general will, they depend on each other. The legislation is also based on the notion of the general will, because law is the declaration of it. And even Rousseau’s dislikes of representation has its roots in the volonté générale due to the fact that the people is the sovereign, which carries out the general will and “will does not admit of representation”.⁴

[...]

1 See also McBurney/Parson: p.1

2 See also Schmidt: 101

3 See also Schmidt: 102

4 Terchek 2001: 72