The social contract & discoursesRousseau, Jean-Jacques
Philosophy
The social contract & discourses
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques
Economics; Political science -- Early works to 1800; Social contract
The public force therefore needs an agent of its own to bind it
together and set it to work under the direction of the general will, to
serve as a means of communication between the State and the Sovereign,
and to do for the collective person more or less what the union of soul
and body does for man. Here we have what is, in the State, the basis of
government, often wrongly confused with the Sovereign, whose minister
it is.
What then is government? An intermediate body set up between the
subjects and the Sovereign, to secure their mutual correspondence,
charged with the execution of the laws and the maintenance of liberty,
both civil and political.
The members of this body are called magistrates or _kings_, that is to
say _governors_, and the whole body bears the name _prince_.[1] Thus
those who hold that the act, by which a people puts itself under a
prince, is not a contract, are certainly right. It is simply and solely
a commission, an employment, in which the rulers, mere officials of the
Sovereign, exercise in their own name the power of which it makes them
depositaries. This power it can limit, modify or recover at pleasure;
for the alienation of such a right is incompatible with the nature of
the social body, and contrary to the end of association.
I call then _government_, or supreme administration, the legitimate
exercise of the executive power, and prince or magistrate the man or
the body entrusted with that administration.
In government reside the intermediate forces whose relations make up
that of the whole to the whole, or of the Sovereign to the State. This
last relation may be represented as that between the extreme terms of a
continuous proportion, which has government as its mean proportional.
The government gets from the Sovereign the orders it gives the people,
and, for the State to be properly balanced, there must, when everything
is reckoned in, be equality between the product or power of the
government taken in itself, and the product or power of the citizens,
who are on the one hand sovereign and on the other subject.
Furthermore, none of these three terms can be altered without the
equality being instantly destroyed. If the Sovereign desires to govern,
or the magistrate to give laws, or if the subjects refuse to obey,
disorder takes the place of regularity, force and will no longer act
together, and the State is dissolved and falls into despotism or
anarchy. Lastly, as there is only one mean proportional between each
relation, there is also only one good government possible for a State.
But, as countless events may change the relations of a people, not only
may different governments be good for different peoples, but also for
the same people at different times.
In attempting to give some idea of the various relations that may hold
between these two extreme terms, I shall take as an example the number
of a people, which is the most easily expressible.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account