Jean Jacques Rousseau, The nature of the king's power and State forms based on Rousseau's opinion
Biography of Jean Jacques Rousseau
Rousseau is a great scholar of state and law from Switzerland.
Rousseau lived in 1712-1778, sometimes in France, sometimes in Switzerland. His teachings on the state and law are written in Jean Jacques Rousseau's books “Discours sur I inegalite parmi les homes” (reviews of the inequality of persons). "Lettres ecrites de la Montagne" (written letters, on the mountains). And Rousseau's book, which is very well known throughout the world, "Social Contrat" (People's Agreement).
In his philosophical teachings, Rousseau has included an element of feeling, whereas in previous times the teachings on philosophy were only arranged in an abstract-rational manner.
Rousseau's attitude to circumstances or problems that prevailed during his lifetime was very independent. This freedom of attitude or opinion is not limited to thoughts of the state and the law.
This attitude is first of all aimed at characteristics that are incompatible with nature, which has been accepted by human civilization and in my spiritual life.
Rousseau considers humans with good origins to have been damaged by civilization, so Rousseau then recommends things he thinks are good.
One main question that Rousseau always asks himself is : how could it be possible, that man who was originally, when he was still alive in his natural state, free and free, is now a human being living under a state control? What is important in this question is not what happened, but how one can establish of this state.
This question is the same as the question how did the country come about ?
Rousseau's teachings are different in some respects from the teachings of other Natural Law scholars, from the perspective of social covenants.
This means that there are other things in common, namely that in a state of chaos, people need assurance of the safety of their souls.
So they then entered into a community agreement. This is what happened.
What is the material or content of the community agreement? This is different from other opinions.
From Rousseau's teachings, the most important thing is his idea of people's sovereignty.
In this case the question is how to obtain a reasonable or rational explanation regarding the balance between the existence of a binding community agreement with the freedom of the people who carry out the community agreement.
So the problem remains on the balance between power and freedom. For this Rousseau provides the following information :
What is the main thing of this community agreement is to find a form of unity, which defends and protects the common power besides the personal power and property of everyone, so that because of that everything can unite, but even so each person still obeys. himself, so that people remain as free and free as before.This thought is the basis of all further opinions or teachings. And it should also be remembered that Rousseau does not recognize natural rights, or basic rights or rights, this is different from John Locke, because he knows.
By carrying out the community agreement, it means that every person relinquishes and gives up all his rights to his unit, namely the community.
So as a result of the implementation of this community agreement are :
- The creation of a general will or volonté générale, namely the unity rather than the will of the people who have carried out the community agreement, this is the highest power, or sovereignty.
- The formation of society, or Gemeinschaft, which is the unity of the people who carry out the community agreement, it is this society that has a common will, namely a supreme power or sovereignty that cannot be released. That is why the supreme power, or sovereignty, is called the people's sovereignty.
So with the community agreement that the state has created, this means that there has been a transition from a natural state to a state state.
Because of this transition human instincts have been replaced by justice and moral actions, and in their place of natural freedom and unlimited or natural liberty, they have now gained freedom limited by the public will, which society has as supreme power.
This power may not be transferred to another hand, or cannot be transferred either absolutely (in whole) or in part.
So the general will or sovereignty remains in society or the whole of the people. But not the people as individuals, but the people who have changed into a unit, which is called society.
In this case, Rousseau did not really question the nature of that power in general. It's just that he considers the power that is in the ruler or king as a power that is represented only, not the original power. so the king is not the owner of power.
According to Rousseau, the king's power was borrowed, because when the individuals entered into a community agreement, they did not surrender their rights or powers to the king, but they surrendered their will or will to the community, which was a separate entity, which arose because the community agreement.
Therefore, the society as a whole has a common will which Rousseau calls the Volonté générale. The general will of society is the highest power, which determines the final and highest decisions, and is called sovereignty.
Thus it becomes evident that the people who have sovereignty.
The nature of the king's power according to Rousseau
According to Rousseau, the people can only surrender their power to the rulers, while their sovereignty cannot be transferred to anyone.
So the sovereignty remains in the community or the people.
So the nature of the ruling power is only to carry out the general will, the ruler is only the representative of the people.
Therefore, if the ruler takes action that is contrary or deviates from the will of the people or the general will, the people can replace the ruler with a new ruler.
This opinion of Rousseau was the result of conditions in France at that time, where the king had absolute power, and exercised his power arbitrarily. According to Rousseau, these things are not in accordance with reason, so they are not in accordance with the laws of nature. So Rousseau's theory wants to change the absolute system of government, as is the case with Montesquieu's theory.
Differences in the teachings of Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes
Rousseau's teaching is far different from that of Thomas Hobbes, who said that the king's power was independent and absolute. Meanwhile, Rousseau considered that the king ruled only as a representative of the people, and exercised that power on behalf of the people, so at any time the king could be replaced or shifted if the king did not carry out the people's will or general will.
Thus the function of the teachings of Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes is very different. The teachings of Thomas Hobbes served to defend his theory, the nature of which only confirmed the circumstances at that time. Meanwhile, Rousseau's teachings criticized the situation at that time which was unacceptable to reason, so it could be said that it was propagandist, opposed to the king's power, and wanted to replace it with a system of government that was acceptable to reason. This had a major result, namely the French upheaval or revolution. And apart from that, Then came new theories about the king's power.
The consequences of Rousseau's teachings are :
- There is the right of the people to change or shift the ruler. This is related to whether the people may evolve against the ruler.
- There is an understanding that the people in power are the people, or the understanding of the people's sovereignty. The people here are not the sum of individuals, but the people as a gemeinschaft, which is abstract.
So what is meant by Rousseau's general will or volontë génerale is not the willingness of the number of people in the country, this is for example 10 million people, it is collected and then added up, but what is meant is the willingness of the 10 million people as a unity, as a society or gemeinschaft.
Why is that ? and why? With a community agreement has been created a hand over their rights to the community. But after the country came into existence they still had to declare their will to move, this was done by passing a law. So thus the lawmaker must exist and he must aim to carry out the public interest.
Thus, even though Rousseau did not actually agree with a sharp separation of state power, Rousseau made a distinction between government and legislation. The statutory power that has sovereignty. But the people cannot run or implement government, that is to run or implement laws. In this case the people delegate the task or power to the king or ruler.
Because if the people want to carry out self-government, the result will be chaos or anarchy.
Government is an agency within the country. However, he does not stand alone like the state, but relies on the sovereign, namely the people.
This government also has a will of its own, has a soul of its own, which is called the volonté de corps.
So the government or the ruler should not only consist of one person, namely the king, but in addition to this king there must be a body whose job it is to channel the will of the people.
Thus, the volonté de corps will be closer, if possible, the same as the volonté générale. Meanwhile, if the government is held by only one single person, namely the king, then the volonté de corps will fall together with the volonté particuliére, or in other words, the volonté de corps will fall far too far or in conflict with the volonté genérale.
In addition, we must distinguish from the meaning of volontė detous, namely the interests of all individuals individually.
What's the difference? The difference lies in the nature rather than the intended interest.
The volonté générale is aimed at the public interest. The volonté de corps is aimed at group interests.
The volonté particuliere is aimed at individual interests. The volonté de tous is aimed at the interests of everyone but these people do not form a unity. so it's different with the public interest. So it can be said that the volonté de tous is aimed at special interests.
How do you know that a will is a general volition or volonté générale? According to Rousseau, the way is to hold a vote, from the people who are the community. However, then a question arises, which at the same time is an objection to Rouseau's opinion.That is, that in that society it is impossible for everyone to have the same will, but who knows how many people there are, of course, who have different wills. So then can it not be said that what Rousseau's so-called general will or volonté générale is the will of the majority of that society, or in other words, the will of all members of that society, or in other words, the will of the all members of society are reduced to a different will.
Indeed it is.
But in fact the problem is different, because according to Rousseau what is important is the way to put forward the issue, which will be asked for approval by voting, to the community.
So what is important is once again not the problem itself, but rather, the method or system of how to solve a problem according to a certain way that satisfies the general will.
So the general will is actually just an illusion, so it is abstract in nature, and sovereignty is that general will.
Thus, from Rousseau's teachings, new consequences emerged, namely the existence of revolutions against or against the absolute power of kings.
And with the collapse of the absolute kings' power, and accompanied by the emergence of new powers besides the king's power, even though the form of the state was still a kingdom, the king's power was no longer the same as its original power. Because now besides the power of the king, there is a new power, namely the power of the representative body or parliament.
Things like this then cause chaos in the terminology of the constitution, meaning that something in the term then experiences a shift in meaning. Because in that country originally the king ruled alone, so his character was single, because beside the king there were no other bodies which ruled. Then the term monarchy emerged (mono singular, or one, and archien is government).
So in the past, or originally what was called a monarchy was a country in which the power, or the government, was only held by a single person. But then after the emergence of other powers besides the king's power, the new power was called a representative body or parliament, the king was no longer a single power.
But even so, the country is still referred to as a monarchy, that in fact, the contents are different from the original ones, even though they are called the same.
Due to this change in the meaning of monarchy, the old definition of monarchy, in which the king ruled singly, this monarchy is called absolute monarchy, whereas in fact from the beginning the monarchy already had an absolute meaning.
But because of the changes mentioned above then added.
The opposite is a monarchy in its modern sense, whose power is no longer absolute, because now in addition to the power of the king there is another body, namely a representative body or parliament, which accompanies the king, this monarchy is then called a limited monarchy, or Parliamentary Monarchy.
Its development does not stop there, because in addition to the king who has been accompanied by this representative body, then there is a constitution or constitution that regulates and reinforces and is fundamental to these powers.
So now in the country beside the king there is a representative body that accompanies the king and there is another constitution, this monarchy is then called the Constitutional Monarchy.
In this way, new difficulties arose to explain the power of the king. Because the kings of ancient times thought that he was God's representative, the sovereign was God, the king was at the will of God, and the king ruled in God's name. But in fact, there were new powers beside the king, and what were these new powers based on.
In some countries this problem or problem is resolved by passing the constitution. Then the new powers have a legal basis, namely the constitution or constitution.
In fact, the constitution later determined the powers of the king, as well as determining the powers of the new bodies.
The problem now turns to the problem of the function of the constitution against the king's power.
Against this, two interpretations arise, namely :
- In a country, where the king has been overthrown, and then there is the appointment of a new head of state, whatever his name is, what is the prince, what is the emperor, is still king, then the power that is in the new head of state is considered to be sourced from on the constitution. So here the function of the constitution is as a source of power, both the power of the head of state and the power of the new bodies that emerged earlier.
- In a country where the king's power has not been or has never been overthrown, it is only possible that the head of the state is replaced, so for the basis of the power of the head of state (which is new, if the head of state has been replaced), which is usually still adjusted to the teachings of sovereignty. God, here it is said that the power of the head of state, usually still the king, is rooted in God's power, while the constitution only functions as a limitation rather than the power of the head of state or king.
Thus, the function of the constitution is different, it depends on the situation in the country, meaning that the country adheres to the theory of people's sovereignty or adopts the theory of God's sovereignty. If the state adheres to the theory of people's sovereignty, it is considered that the constitution is the source of all power in the country. So also the power of the king.
So the consequence is, if in the constitution regarding a matter there is no regulation or provisions regarding that matter the power is given to whom, this means that the power over that matter does not rest with the king.
Meanwhile, if the country adheres to the theory of God's sovereignty, the constitution is considered a limitation on the power of the king. Consequently, if in the constitution there is no regulation or provision regarding the forms of the state in the constitution, the emphasis is on who, according to historical instinct, remains in the hands of the king.
We return to the teachings of Rousseau, in that teaching Rousseau also talks about the forms of the state. In talking about the forms of the state, the focus is on what, who is the holder of the state power, or the governmental power, and how many people it consists.
State forms based on Rousseau's opinion
- If the power of the state or governmental power rests with a king as the representative of the people, then this is Monarchy.
- If the power of the state or governmental power is in the hands of two or more people, and they are good in nature, then this is Aristocracy.
- If the state power or governmental power lies with the people who are also good in character, then this is Democracy.
Arranging or appointing a government or ruler is not based on a community agreement, based on that only the gathering of the people into a unity, namely society.
Because the formulation or appointment of the government or the ruler is determined by the people by means of a law, so is the form of the government.
Thus, because the people are sovereign, it is not surprising that what has been determined, even with the law, both regarding the appointment of the rulers and the form of government, can be withdrawn, because the general will of the people cannot be destroyed.
Also the community agreement is not something that can no longer be eliminated.
