Sign on the dotted line...

Hello,

The Social Contact - what we sacrifice in order to be looked after by the sate. We give up some of our rights to maintain order as in the long-run it seems better than the alternative (we've all seen Mad Max).

The heart of the idea of the social contract may be stated simply: Each of us places his person and authority under the supreme direction of the general will, and the group receives each individual as an indivisible part of the whole... Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

The Social Contract (1762) is the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau in which Rousseau ponders the ideal setup for our political communities, he wrote the book in order to solve all the problems which he listed in the Discourse on Inqualilty (1754). In his first book he attempted to answer question: What is the origin of equality among men, and is it authorized by natural law? He answered this by looking at the natuaral, physical, ethical, political problems. So the Social Contact is the sequel.

Rousseau thinks that for the government to work effectively it must be sanctioned by the people, this is when the King/Queen step in to act as the public voice. If their people don't like the political leader the monarch can say no, you can't lead on the publics behalf... In England Gordon Brown would ask the Queen for permission to take charge, it's very unlikely she would refuse - what's her alternative? 

Rousseau says that a perfect society would work best if it were to be run by the general will of it's population. He doesn't specify how this would be done... it would take a long time, especially in a big country. Although he does suggest regular meetings in which citizens can have a say in the general will - achievable in a small town, but much harder to accommodate the whole of London.

He goes on to say that without the viewpoint of the people the government isn't viable, he says the views of the public can not be shown via a representative as this is no the true voice of the people. So according to these ideas a School Council doesn't even make the grade, so how could a whole country achieve it?

The following are from the Social Contract, and are what Rousseau tries to answer;

1) The Sovereign, having no force other than the legislative power, act by only means of the laws; and the laws being solely the authentic acts of the general will. 

2)Every law the people has not ratified in person is null and void - is in fact, not law.

3) The legislative power belongs to the people, and can belong to it alone.

The social contract was pivotal in the reformations of in Europe but especially in France. One theme in the social contract was the idea that the monarch did not have the divine right to rule, Rousseau says that it's the people in the form if the Sovereign which have that right, hence the revolution in France. King Louis XVI said he had the divine right to rule - which the French had enough with (along with other things). 

The aim of the social contract is to find out if we can have a viable political presence. Rousseau says yes we can, as long as the people remove themselves from a state of nature, ie not just doing what we want all the time but entering a social contract with our fellow man. The Contact would create new laws, which would mean giving up rights in order for us to be the same and free. This may have annoyed people, but Rousseau says you can exit the contact by leaving the society you are living in. According to Rousseau; liking the Sex Pistols is not true rebellion. Being truly rebellious would be living  in a cave, as a consequence retuning to our state of nature.

Rousseau sates that any society must have two parts. The first being a Sovereign acting on behalf of the people and the second being the government, these two are very separate. They must be due to the fact the Monarch can't deal with every matter, therefore is not united and will be destroyed (similar if people pick a choose what laws to follow will result in  a collapse of the law). The government must be separate so it can continue when the monarchy collapses.

Rousseau says that the larger the territory, then the more power the government has over it's population. He says this as the government is only as powerful as it's people (more people = more power). Rousseau would say that a large country with a monarch has the most power as it there is lots of people with little civil servants between the people and the monarch. Where as in a large bureaucratic government there is more power to be delegated amongst it's self so it has less power. 

Due to this theory Rousseau sates that countries with small sates are where freedom flourishes best (such as Geneva, where Rousseau came from, so no bias there then). Rousseau argues it's the most effective as there is less steps between people and the rulersand due to a smaller population makes it easier to find the general will of the people. (The postman handing out a survey about free school meals for children along with the bills, for example)