Rousseau No one is free; limits exist in all parts of the world.

One can not just float through life doing whatever they choose to do, whenever they choose to do it. Yet if you ask any American if they are free, they will most likely enthusiastically say yes. Why do then Americans believe that they are free? Democracy is the answer, it may not give us the opportunity to do what we want when we want with out penalty, but it gives us the right to choose, and that is what people find to be freedom. The American government was established By the people, for the people to ensure Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To do those things the founding fathers instituted a representative democracy. Which in its simplest form is the people, electing representative to create laws that benefit, the people they were elected to represent. But is that truly freedom? Englands parliament is also based on the idea of a representative democracy, Jean-Jacques Rousseau said in his On the Social Contract The English people believes itself to be free. It is greatly mistaken; it is free only during the election of the Member of Parliament. Once they are elected, the populace is enslaved; it is nothing.(Pg. 198) Rousseau is considered the Grandfather of Direct Democracy. Direct democracy is for the impact of the people instead of electing people to purpose and vote on laws, the people gather and do it themselves. The idea, that "the consent of the individuals legitimate government", was a point of contention for Rousseau. Its obvious that Rousseau would disagree with the United States use of representatives to run our government. Examining direct democracy and representative democracy will answer the question on whether or not freedom exists in either form of government, and corroborate or contradict, Rousseaus ideas.

Rousseau believed that there was need for citizen participation, not representative. The general will, will always be in the right and inclines toward the public good, but it does not follow that the deliberations of the people always have the same moral virtue. People always desire what is good, but they do not always see that which is good. You can never corrupt the people, but you can often fool them, and that is the only time that the people appear to will something bad. Rousseau's ideal society would consist of all the citizens directly involved in the creation of the laws, which are to govern their lives. Rousseau believed in an active citizenry, however, his explanation of the involvement took a much more direct form. He maintained that, "all citizens should meet together and decide what is best for the community and enact the appropriate laws. The ruled should be the rulers."(Pg. 199) Any law, which was not directly created by the citizens, is not valid, and if those laws are imposed on people, that is equivalent to the people being enslaved. But arent the representatives citizens, do they not have our best interest in mind? Did Rousseau not fully understand representative democracy? Rousseau uses the Greeks as a real representation of a direct democracy, Among the Greeks, whatever the populace had to do it did by itself. It was constantly assembled at the public square.(Pg. 199) then he goes on to state that the reason that the Greeks had the time to constantly debate in the public square is because the work was done by slaves. What! Can liberty be maintained only with the support of servitude? Perhaps. (PG. 199) Going back to a representative form of democracy Rousseau says; using deputies or representatives of the people in the nations assemblies. It is what in certain countries is called the third estate. Thus the private interest of the two orders is first and second place; the public interest is given merely third place. (Pg. 198) So lets look at Americas representative democracy. America is built on checks and balances. With the three separate branches having different responsibilities and powers. Keeping it from being a pure

representative democracy. Congress-people have even been know to pass the vote to the citizens on high-profile issue using a kind of direct democracy policy once in a while, making America this hybrid of democracy. We are going to walk through the representative part of our government and kind of dismiss the other two branches to government for the time being. The United States Congress is made up of two branches, The House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives is made up of 437 representatives from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Our house has the most contact with the people they represent, for their districts are smaller, with fewer people in each, than say the Senate. We elect these people based on our ideas, vote for the candidate that best represents our interest. That brings us back to the original question of freedom, does having a person that you may or may not have voted for be your voice, plus the other couple of thousand people that he/she has to represent give us a voice, and does that voice give us freedom? Well, that all depends, Rousseau of course as stated previously that any form of representative government is comparable to slavery, where as our founding fathers consider that the vote enabled us to have a voice in policy making, giving us the chance to be free. So in America we are practically slaves, but in Greece they had to have slaves to truly be free. The two extremes meet. Everything that is not in nature has its drawbacks, and civil society more so than all the rest. There are some unfortunate circumstances where ones liberty can be preserved only at the expense of someone elses, and where the citizen can be perfectly free only if the slave is completely enslaved. Such was the situation in Sparta. As for you, modern peoples, you do no have slaves, but you yourselves are slaves. You pay for your liberty with your own. It is in vain that you crow about that preference. I find more cowardice in it that humanity.(Pg. 199)

Rousseau does admit that having slaves is not necessary to have a direct democracy, small societies can conduct one without the presence of slaves. So Rousseau would never find freedom in any representative democracy that is quite evident, but is Rousseau wrong? Rousseau states that; Once someone says what do I care? about the affairs of state, the state should be considered lost.(Pg. 198) But voter turn out in the United States has been below 60% since the union was put back together. Thats a lot of people saying what do I care? And thats a lot of years that the state has remained. Early I quoted Rousseau about the third estate, well the estates, were Rousseaus home countries way of classifying its citizen. The third estate was made up of peasants and farmers and did not even have a reasonable voice in Frances government. They were the peons, practically slaves to Frances first and second estates, so comparing Frances monarchy to a representative government is all but blasphemy. So maybe Rousseau was wrong, England at the time of Rousseaus life was also a monarchy, and its colonies did not even have representation in its parliament. Rousseau did not really have a true modern representative government to compare it to and their for may have come to the wrong conclusion. Winston Churchill once said The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. The typical voter ballot in America is written at a fourth grade reading level because that is what the average voter reads at. Think of a direct democracy with the uneducated derelicts of society debating laws? Then imagine having a town hall meeting with 300 million people, would not be easy to have your voice heard, would it? If no one is free then why do we debate freedom why do we call ourselves free? Because like happiness, anger, or love freedom is a state of mind, its not something you can eat lunch with or have sit next to you at the movies, freedom is what lets you go to the movies to whatever movie you want to see or sit with whom ever you want. The first Amendment to the United States Constitution starts off; Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech that is what Americans consider freedom that is where our conflict with Rousseau starts. His idea of freedom is a large hand in the government where as Americans believe it to be the ability to express them selves with out interference. Rousseau consider The hustle and bustle of
commerce and the arts, the avid interest in profits, softness and the love if amenities(Pg. 197) harmful to democracy, where as Americans consider those things essential to freedom and democracy.

Jacob Backbee

PSC 275 November 5, 2002

To Represent or not to Represent, That is the Question

Rousseau on Representative and Direct Democracy

Jacob Backbee November 5, 2002 PSC 275 Tues Thurs 11:00-12:20