In The Social Contract, 18th-century Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau discusses political legitimacy, or the ethical right to exercise political authority by creating and enforcing laws. Specifically, he attempts to answer the question, “Can there be a legitimate society, and if so, what would it look like?”
(Shortform note: Keep in mind that in The Social Contract, Rousseau uses a normative definition of legitimacy—one which provides standards that a state must meet to be legitimate. A normative definition is suited to discussions of a society’s moral obligations. Normative definitions differ from descriptive definitions of political legitimacy, commonly found in works of history and the social sciences. A descriptive definition states that for a society to be legitimate, the only requirement is that its members believe that it is legitimate. This type of definition is better suited to discussing concrete examples of present or past interactions between a society and its members.)
In this guide, we’ll explain Rousseau’s answer by exploring the following:
We’ll also provide historical context for Rousseau’s arguments, as well as alternative philosophical perspectives on social contract theory, government uses of political power, and the ideal ethical government.
Rousseau begins The Social Contract by explaining what makes a society legitimate. To answer this question, he explores three ideas:
Through these explanations, Rousseau determines the benefits and moral standards a society must offer to be legitimate.
Before discussing life in society, Rousseau first outlines what life is like outside of society, in a “state of nature.” In a state of nature, we live only by the laws of human nature—primarily the natural law of acting in self-preservation. The only society that forms in a state of nature is the family, and only briefly when children are dependent on their parents. After that, Rousseau claims, human nature no longer compels us to stay together. Therefore, he says life in a state of nature is mostly spent alone with absolute freedom to pursue whatever we want, whenever we want it.
We do sometimes choose to form societies because having more people around makes survival easier. However, we aren’t naturally compelled to do so—we choose to join these societies and can choose to leave.
(Shortform note: Rousseau’s claim that humans aren’t naturally social beings contrasts with extensive psychological, biological, and neuroscientific research. Research shows that human brains are structured for social interaction and that social isolation negatively impacts mental and physical health. This research suggests that human nature does compel us to form social groups, seriously challenging one of the main premises of Rousseau’s arguments.)
Based on the benefits of the state of nature and the reason we form societies, Rousseau creates two standards a society must meet to be legitimate (that is, to have the ethical right to exercise political authority over its members):
1) Protection: A legitimate society must offer the benefit of protection that people form societies for in the first place. If it didn’t, people would be better off remaining in the state of nature, free to do whatever they want.
2) Freedom: A legitimate society must not infringe on the freedom of its members.
(Shortform note: Rousseau’s standards for a legitimate society are far stricter than those of other enlightenment philosophers—this is partially due to his relatively kind view of the state of nature. Rousseau believes the state of nature is the source of human morality (Emile, or On Education). Therefore, Rousseau’s standards for legitimacy are much higher—since he’s attempting to create a society that maintains this natural goodness. On the other hand, philosophers like Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) see the state of nature as a violent place where nobody can lead a satisfying life. Therefore, Hobbes’s standards of political legitimacy are low—a society simply must provide protection to be preferable to a state of nature.)
Rousseau offers two reasons why a society can’t legitimately infringe on the freedom of its members:
A society infringes on freedom when some of its members use force to compel the rest to obey. This is an illegitimate use of authority because nobody has a natural right to rule over anyone else: If someone uses violence, their victim doesn’t have any moral obligation to obey them—they just obey out of fear or self-preservation. Limiting freedom by force is therefore unethical.
(Shortform note: Historical context is necessary to grasp the full scope of Rousseau’s argument. Claiming that no man has a natural right to rule another doesn’t just contradict rule by brute force—it also contradicts the predominant religious and political ideology of Europe at the time. For centuries in Europe, the consensus was that legitimacy came from divine right: the belief that God gave monarchs the right to rule. Rousseau's argument directly challenges divine right, and therefore directly challenges the legitimacy of most European states at the time.)
Members of society can’t voluntarily sacrifice their freedoms and obey a ruler (or rulers) in exchange for protection. Rousseau gives two reasons why such an arrangement doesn’t make sense in the context of legitimacy:
(Shortform note: To better understand Rousseau’s argument that sacrifice of freedom is illegitimate, we can look to his later work Emile, or On Education. In Emile, Rousseau argues that humans in a state of nature are naturally good and moral. From this perspective, the freedom characteristic of the state of nature is what makes us ethical people—so willingly giving away this freedom means willingly becoming unethical. Since legitimacy requires ethical conduct, it follows that a society made up of a leader with unlimited power and their unethical subjects is illegitimate.)
To meet the two standards necessary for a legitimate society, Rousseau explains that all members of this society must come together as equals and agree to a social contract. This social contract has one rule: Every member must choose to exchange their personal freedom (freedom to pursue what’s good for themself as an individual) for civil freedom (participation in a society that pursues what’s good for everyone).
In part two of this guide, we’ll explain how the social contract exchanges personal freedom for civil freedom, and how it forms a legitimate government.
Under the social contract, all members of the society form a collective political entity: the sovereign will of the people (sovereign for short). The sovereign isn’t an existing political body like a court or parliament. Instead, the sovereign is closer to the overarching ideology or purpose of society—the reason for its existence and every use of its political authority.
The sovereign is a kind of “public person” that can act with absolute freedom. Therefore, by agreeing to the social contract, members of the society are no less free than they were before—they just exercise their freedom as a member of the sovereign, rather than as an individual. However, while the sovereign is absolutely free, it can only exist so long as it pursues a good common to all of its members. Any pursuit of what is good only for some members means the people no longer have a collective will, and therefore aren’t acting as the sovereign.
Once the people enter into the sovereign, their society becomes a state and they become citizens—terms emblematic of their new political entity.
A state built on the social contract meets both of Rousseau’s standards for legitimacy:
1) Protection: The social contract protects all citizens of a state. An attack on any individual who’s part of the sovereign is an attack on the sovereign as a whole. Therefore, everyone has a vested interest in protecting each other because doing so also means protecting themselves.
2) Freedom: Under the social contract, nobody is any less free than they were before—they merely exercise their freedom through the sovereign, rather than as individuals.
Therefore, Rousseau concludes that a social contract (and the sovereign it creates) is the foundation of a legitimate state and that the ultimate goal of this state is the common good for all its citizens. Since the social contract is the foundation of a legitimate state, Rousseau argues that the use of force to preserve it (or the common good) is therefore a legitimate use of political authority. That is, the state can and should punish those who pursue self-interest at the expense of the common good.
What Makes Rousseau’s Social Contract Unique
Rousseau’s definition of the social contract is similar to definitions used by other enlightenment scholars like Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) and John Locke (Two Treatises of Government). However, there are a few major differences that determine each philosopher’s conclusion as to what makes a state legitimate:
Hobbes: Hobbes’s social contract is an agreement to give up all personal freedoms in exchange for protection. In practical terms, this means obedience to a government run by a single leader with absolute power—so long as the leader provides protection, their state is legitimate and they have the right to do anything.
Rousseau versus Hobbes: Rousseau argues explicitly against Hobbes’s claim that a person can give up all of their freedoms to their government, saying no ethical person would do such a thing and that a government has no obligation to protect subjects who have no rights. In addition, Rousseau argues that the sovereign will of the people must run a state, rather than the will of one individual leader.
Locke: To Locke, the social contract is an agreement to give up the personal freedom to commit violence against others (except in self-defense) or to punish them for wrongs—they give those rights instead to a government. This government must run according to the will of the majority, and its main purpose is to protect the people’s right to life, liberty, and property. So long as the government runs by majority rule and protects these rights, its state is legitimate.
Rousseau versus Locke: The main difference between Rousseau and Locke is over what constitutes the will of the people. Rousseau believes that a legitimate state must pursue a good common to all of its citizens, rather than a majority of citizens—a division between a minority and majority means the people can’t agree on a collective will. In addition, Rousseau argues that a legitimate state doesn’t need to explicitly deprive its citizens of the freedom to harm or punish others—citizens who are members of the sovereign and pursue a common good won’t harm each other, since harming another citizen means pursuing a good not common to all.
While the sovereign provides legitimacy to the state, Rousseau argues that it cannot handle the day-to-day governing of the state. The sovereign can’t make decisions about specific matters, as they’ll inevitably divide public opinion—a “collective will” is impossible. The sovereign therefore must create a government to run the specific operations of the state, acting as a middleman between the sovereign will of the people and individual citizens.
(Shortform note: Rousseau’s insistence on an undivided sovereign reflects his concern that any division would invite a majority of citizens to infringe upon the freedom of the minority. This oppressive majority rule over a minority is what French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville’s (Democracy in America) calls “tyranny of the majority.” By creating a government that acts on behalf of all citizens, Rousseau ensures that the sovereign can’t devolve into this type of tyranny.)
The sovereign empowers the government to pursue the common good, the government does so by legislating and enforcing specific laws, and then individual citizens must live under those laws. This process is part of the exchange of freedoms required by the social contract: Laws limit individual freedoms but are an expression of the sovereign’s civil freedom to pursue the common good.
(Shortform note: Rousseau suggests in his later work Confessions that in addition to performing the daily operations of the state, the best government is one that creates the most moral and virtuous citizens. He brings up this idea of government as a moral educator throughout The Social Contract, emphasizing that the government must consist of wise and virtuous individuals. This suggests that the rules, systems, and limits on government power that he focuses on in this book, and which we’ll explore over the next few sections, are insufficient for a legitimate state.)
Rousseau divides legitimate government into two branches: legislators who create a constitution, and executives who create and enforce specific laws.
The legislators write a constitution consisting of rules for how the government functions. Their main goal when writing this constitution is to express the sovereign will of the people, preserving liberty and equality—in other words, the common good. There’s no one constitution perfect for all states; instead, the legislature must create one specific to their own state’s circumstances. While the legislators create the constitution, the sovereign alone has the right to make it into law and the right to change it (more on this in Part 4).
Rousseau explains two reasons why the legislators must exist separate from the sovereign and the executives:
Representatives in a Legitimate State
Rousseau has a complicated view on representatives in government. On the one hand, he argues in book three of The Social Contract that representatives cannot speak for the will of the sovereign. On the other hand, here he suggests that legislators must create laws on behalf of the sovereign in a legitimate state.
Some scholars attempt to resolve this contradiction, arguing that Rousseau intends for the sovereign to act as a gatekeeper for potential legislation, rather than as a creator. Under this interpretation, the sovereign expresses the general will by blocking laws or government members (more on this in Part 4) instead of by writing laws themselves. This perspective resolves the contradiction: The sovereign still speaks for itself, but also requires legislators to propose potential laws.
Once a government has a constitution, it will need executives to make and enforce laws and manage the affairs of the state. Rousseau explains that an ideal executive must follow three directives in their decision-making:
Executive Standards of Legitimacy
While Rousseau provides these three guidelines for executives’ decision-making, he doesn’t elaborate on what following them would look like. For more specifics on how these executives should make decisions, political philosopher John Rawls provides two standards for ensuring legitimate use of government authority:
1) The government must create laws with just outcomes. To Rawls, “just” means the fair application of the law to all citizens.
2) The government must create laws according to existing rules and systems for government function—in other words, its constitution. A law that has a just outcome but wasn’t created in accordance with these systems is illegitimate.
Rawls’s two standards apply to all three of Rousseau’s directives for executives:
Common good: A law that applies fairly to all citizens (following Rawls’s first standard) is in service of the common good because no one is favored over anyone else.
Maintain executive authority: Rawls’s second standard of using rules and systems for governance allows executives to clearly define their own authority—and a clear definition makes it harder for the sovereign or legislators to infringe on executive authority.
Avoid self-interest: Both of Rawls’s standards apply here: By creating just laws and following the limits on executive authority established by the constitution, executives can avoid making laws out of self-interest.
The state must find executives who strive to follow these three directives so their government can exercise legitimate authority. Rousseau outlines three different systems a state might use to pick these executives:
First, Rousseau discusses democracy: a system where all citizens act as executives, making and enforcing laws.
(Shortform note: When Rousseau discusses democracy, he’s talking about direct democracy, rather than representative democracy. Here’s the difference between the two: Direct democracy is a system of government where citizens vote on all major decisions or issues that the government faces. The most famous example of a true direct democracy is the ancient city-state of Athens. Representative democracy is a system of government where citizens elect representatives to participate in the government—this is the system most people refer to today when talking about democracy. Representative democracies include countries like the modern-day United States, France, or Singapore.)
Rousseau argues that a democratic government can rarely exercise legitimate power: In other government systems, the sovereign and the constitution place limits on the executives. However, in a democracy, the sovereign is the executive and doesn’t need a constitution on its behalf. Therefore, nothing prevents a majority of citizens from creating and enforcing laws out of self-interest. When they do so, they force their will upon the minority of citizens, no longer pursue the common good, and therefore can’t exercise legitimate power.
(Shortform note: For a deeper explanation of why democracy often collapses due to self-interest, we can look to Plato’s Republic. Plato argues that a democratic state is run by those who can persuade the most people—not those who are the smartest or wisest or most moral. Because of this, a democratic state doesn’t run by consistent moral standards—people value whatever appeals to them most, rather than what they find the most just or wise. Therefore, democratic society runs on self-interest. Plato argues that such a society will eventually collapse into tyranny when a leader can appeal to citizens’ self-interests in exchange for increasing political powers.)
Second, Rousseau discusses monarchy: a government with a single executive. Rousseau argues that a monarchical government is seriously flawed, and can rarely exercise legitimate power. A government run by a single individual is particularly vulnerable to the flaws, whims, and selfish interests of that individual.
Finally, Rousseau explains aristocracy: a government composed of a small group of individuals, acting separately from the sovereign. Three guidelines can determine the executives in an aristocracy:
Rousseau argues that the third guideline—determining aristocrats through elections—is usually the best choice for creating a legitimate government, as it allows for wise and skilled executives chosen by the people rather than executives who simply have power, wealth, or a certain lineage. He explains that a smaller group of talented executives function better than the large government of direct democracy without relying too much on one individual like a monarchy.
The Values of Governments
Baron de Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws also compares different government types and explores what keeps them stable or causes them to collapse. However, while Rousseau argues that the key values behind any legitimate government must be liberty and equality, Montesquieu argues that different government types require different key values to be stable and effective. Montesquieu outlines four types of government and explains the key values behind each:
1) Democracy: The key value behind democracy is virtue: love of the state and of good citizenship and a willingness to make personal sacrifices for the good of the state as a whole. A stable and beneficial democratic government needs virtuous citizens because virtuous citizens want to participate in government and to keep its various institutions stable.
2) Despotism: Montesquieu’s definition of despotism is similar to Rousseau’s definition of a monarchy—a government run by a single individual with absolute power. Unlike a monarchy, however, the key value behind a despotic government is fear. If subjects no longer fear a despotic government, then they will either hold it accountable or overthrow it—the former makes the government no longer despotic, and the latter makes it fail entirely.
3) Monarchy: Montesquieu uses a different definition of monarchy than Rousseau: a government united under a single individual with effective laws limiting the power of that individual. The strength and effectiveness of these laws separate monarchy from despotism. The key value behind monarchy is honor: submission to the state and participation in its institutions out of self-interest. Honor is necessary for a monarchy because it doesn’t have the power of a despot to force obedience, but also can’t offer its subjects the same political rights as a democracy.
4) Aristocracy: Montesquieu defines aristocracy as a government run primarily by a hereditary, landed group of nobles—even if it has a monarch. The key value of aristocracy is moderation: the ability to balance the political powers of the state’s monarch, nobles, and subjects. By correctly moderating the political powers of these groups, an aristocratic government makes them all work together in a stable and effective state and prevents any group from becoming strong enough to overpower the others.
All legitimate states eventually die, claims Rousseau. The division of power between the sovereign and the government can’t be perfect, and when one gains too much power over the other then it can freely act in self-interest and the state stops being legitimate:
(Shortform note: By claiming that the legitimacy of a state will eventually collapse, Rousseau differentiates his project from other philosophical attempts to determine a perfect state. Other works like Plato’s Republic or Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan claim that their ideal state can exist forever if properly managed. Rousseau’s declaration that an eternal state is impossible is a rare appeal to pragmatism in an otherwise idealistic book.)
However, a legitimate state can prolong its life by creating systems to delay an imbalance of power. Rousseau identifies three systems that prolong the life of a legitimate state:
Rousseau emphasizes that for the sovereign to express its will, the people must gather regularly in public assemblies. The state must ensure a vast majority of citizens attend these assemblies, using force if necessary—otherwise, the sovereign as a whole can’t express its will. These public assemblies ensure the government acts in service of the common good and therefore acts legitimately.
At these assemblies, the sovereign can change any law except the social contract itself and can replace individual executives or their government as a whole.
Because of the incredible logistical challenges required to assemble the entire population of a state, Rousseau concedes that regular public assemblies and, by extension, the sovereign’s ability to exercise authority, can only occur in very small states.
Rousseau and Totalitarianism
While Rousseau believes that public assemblies are necessary for an ethical state, some scholars argue that Rousseau’s suggestions on the expression of the general will resemble totalitarian regimes. This viewpoint argues that Rousseau’s “legitimate state” is in fact an unethical regime that controls every aspect of citizens’ lives and represses all dissent. Rousseau’s critics use two examples in particular to argue that his legitimate state is totalitarian:
1) Rousseau’s claim that a state can and must use force to compel its citizens to act in service of the general will. Critics argue that through this claim, Rousseau gives the state full permission to force any dissenters to obey.
2) The historical example of the Reign of Terror. In the Reign of Terror, the French revolutionary government publicly executed hundreds of perceived “enemies of the state.” Robespierre, one of the main architects of the Reign of Terror, famously loved Rousseau’s philosophy and used it (and other enlightenment philosophies) to justify this violence as the will of the people. However, other scholars note that Robespierre ultimately denounced enlightenment philosophers like Rousseau during the Reign of Terror, suggesting that its violence was actually an expression of anti-enlightenment ideals.
Public unity is also crucial for prolonging a legitimate state, explains Rousseau. When opinion among citizens becomes too divided and they form different factions, the sovereign will of the people becomes divided. If one faction wins, they enforce their will on the losing faction and no longer pursue a common good. Since public unity is crucial for pursuing the common good (the goal of a legitimate state), steps taken to preserve public unity are legitimate.
(Shortform note: Many of the founders of the United States agreed with Rousseau’s claim that factionalism posed a serious threat to a liberal and equal state. James Madison argued in The Federalist Papers that a well-constructed state must have the ability to stop and prevent factional violence. George Washington in his farewell address also warned that political parties were dangerous for a liberal state.)
Rousseau offers two methods a state can use to preserve public unity:
The state should use censorship to maintain public unity. For a legitimate state to continue, its people must share its core beliefs: liberty, equality, and pursuit of the common good. Otherwise, citizens will see no reason not to act in self-interest, and the public will no longer have unity. Censoring information that goes against these core beliefs ensures that the personal ethical beliefs of individuals align with the core beliefs of a legitimate state, maintaining public unity.
(Shortform note: Rousseau’s argument for censorship in a state whose main goal is liberty might seem contradictory. Some scholars argue that Rousseau’s definition of censorship is closer to broad social taboo, rather than government bans on expression. This interpretation claims that Rousseau’s censorship is a collaborative effort between a wise government and its moral people. Together, they determine the common good and then silence public expression arguing against it, so citizens remain moral and dedicated to the state. Therefore, this perspective argues that censorship wouldn’t be a government depriving its people of liberty but instead a tool for public moral education.)
The state can also preserve public unity by creating its own religion. With a state religion, political and religious ideals are the same, so citizens will work to become good citizens (and therefore pursue the common good) with the devotion of faithful believers. However, the state religion shouldn’t be incompatible with other religions—religious intolerance also promotes public disunity.
(Shortform note: To fully understand why Rousseau argues for a state religion, it’s important to understand the historical context behind The Social Contract. Rousseau published the book in 1762, only a few decades after the end of the European wars of religion—a series of religious conflicts between Catholics and Protestants spanning the 16th, 17th, and early 18th centuries. Founding a tolerant state religion is Rousseau’s attempt to prevent similar internal religious violence from happening again.)
Rousseau also argues that in specific circumstances, a legitimate state must create entities with supreme political power to maintain its legitimacy and protect itself:
When the constitution can’t resolve a dispute between the sovereign and the government, Rousseau suggests that an independent tribunal arbitrate the conflict. The tribunal is separate from the sovereign and the executives, so it has no conflicts of interest. Rousseau argues that because the tribunal is uniquely powerful within the state, it shouldn’t exist permanently. Instead, it should only exist during the brief periods when conflicts arise.
(Shortform note: You might notice similarities between Rousseau’s tribunal and the highest courts of many existing modern states—the Supreme Court of the United States, for example. The Supreme Court and the tribunal both resolve disputes regarding interpretations of the law and how those laws apply to citizens. However, the Supreme Court is made up of life-appointed justices, while Rousseau recommends frequent dissolution and recreation of tribunals as needed. By doing so, he argues that these tribunals won’t gain executive powers—which one could argue the Supreme Court has, since it can in practice create laws via judicial review.)
When the state faces destruction from external forces like an invading foreign power, Rousseau says it should install a temporary dictatorship: one or two individuals with absolute power. This is because a normal government with its limits on executive power won’t be able to properly address existential threats.
Dictatorial power is still legitimate, since protecting their state from destruction is clearly the will of the people. However, Rousseau emphasizes that the state should use dictatorship rarely and only for brief periods so dictators don’t have an opportunity to forcefully take control of the state.
(Shortform note: Rousseau also argues that the constitution must prevent any extension of dictatorial rule and that any dictator chosen must strongly believe in the state’s core beliefs of liberty and equality. Without these guidelines, a temporary dictatorship can destroy the state. He explains that this is part of what caused the collapse of the Roman republic. In theory, the Roman senate would vote to provide dictatorial power only during times of crisis. This power lasted for six months, though traditionally dictators gave up their power immediately after the crisis ended. However, during the collapse of the Roman republic, the senate gave (often under threat of violence) dictatorial power for extended—sometimes indefinite—periods.)
Reflect on how you agree or disagree with Rousseau’s views on the source of political legitimacy by considering your own state.
Do you think you have an ethical obligation to obey the laws of your state? Why or why not?
Do you think the state (country) you live in pursues the common good for its citizens? Why or why not?
Based on your answers to the above questions, where do you agree with Rousseau’s views on political legitimacy (that is, that political legitimacy comes from the will of the people)? Where do you disagree with Rousseau’s views? Explain your answer.