Rousseau’s goal in his political theory was to seek to reconcile political rule and individual liberty, claiming that naturalized modern society with property rights are the basis of moral inequality and hence the reason of man’s freedom as those with rights created laws to alienate those who don’t; “Man are born free, but everywhere he is in chains.” (The Social Contract, Book 1, Chapter 1). The only solution for moral inequality is through an exchange contract whereby men give up their natural right for political right. By doing so, men exchange their private will, giving up personal inclinations, to take on will of the common good, coined by Rousseau as the general will.

Rousseau’s conception of freedom can be interpreted as a status. The free person exercises self-autonomy and initiates his own actions wherein the slave follows the decree of his master. By following self-prescribed law, are man truly free; “they are not enslaved but free, because they are not obeying someones else’s will but obeying self-prescribed law” (The Social Contract, Book 1, Chapter 1).

Most notably brought up by Isaiah Berlin, it is important to note between the two concepts of liberty. Positive liberty is defined as the freedom to achieve one’s goals and act on one’s free will while negative liberty is defined as the freedom from external interference. By this definition, both concepts are rival and incompatible interpretations of liberty, and Rousseau’s theory likewise failed to reconcile them. The freedom to achieve one’s own goals and the freedom from external interference can sometimes be at odds with the other. Like Rousseau’s general will, positive liberty is viewed as attainable through means such as collectivism. Positive concept of liberty has drawbacks such as it being a precursor to totalitarianism.

In the structural sense, the general will is riddled with issues. The general will is perceived to be the most enlightened form of will, which is the will for the common good, but not the will of a specific interest group. The general will has to apply to all the same, which meant that people holding different occupations and ways of life are subjected to the same code and law, agreed upon by the general will, through direct democracy. The establishment of those laws is problematic. As mentioned, the general will is not the will of the majority, how then the laws be decided upon? Rousseau took to believe that through direct democracy, where every citizen congregate together, the will of all will miraculously converge into the general will. Once the general will is established, Rousseau claimed that it can never be wrong and to oppose it would be irrational, and should be imposed sanctions and be “forced to be free.”

Realistically, it is almost impossible for opinions not to be swayed by majority rule. Even if characterized by majority rule, citizens might be said to be free on grounds of self-autonomy but if they are oppressed then it must be that they are not free. By adopting an organic conception of society according which collectivism can be viewed as an organic living being, which in this case, the general will who decide affairs rationally and self-governed, even the majority are oppressed in the name of liberty. Rousseau’s theory caused a dilemma in scenarios whereby personal inclinations can go against the desires of the group. If sanctions which according to Rousseau may include death, then negative liberty is threatened, that is the freedom from external interference. The threat of death or exile hence hinders the free actions of the citizen. Rousseau focused primarily on the positive aspect of liberty by self-autonomy, and wholly undermined negative liberty.

Rousseau advocated the idea of what is good for the common is good for the individual which also cannot be the case. Diverse people from diverse backgrounds such as occupations and way of life have different needs and desires. What is decided in the assembly might not be what the true will of the majority, but could be seen as a compromise. “The general will is simply what the citizens of the state have decided together in their sovereign assembly and an alternative to.. what any of the actually wants” as argued by Bertram (Legacy in two conception of general will, pg. 403 – 420). In real world settings, there are vertical and horizontal equity in governance, in terms of welfare and treatment of it’s citizens. Rousseau focused way too heavily on ‘equal treatment of the equals’ but neglected the possibility that some might need more assistance than others in society.

Can the general will be challenged? Rousseau stance on the general will as never wrong can be interpreted as not. Rousseau’s political theory, like Plato’s theory of the states, both fall under the same criticism of “who guard the guardians?” – famously posed by satirical poet Juvenal. In Plato’s Republic, the “guardians” hold the ultimate authority, and they rely on their own virtues to maintain the state of the Republic. However, though the guardians themselves can keep the populace in order, they themselves cannot protect themselves from becoming incorruptible themselves. “The decay of states” henceforth occurs through generations, wherein according to Plato who supported Aristocracy and monarchy will decay to Timocracy, to Democracy to Tyranny. By calling the general will infallible, does this mean that once the general will is established, has absolute power over it’s citizens? Rousseau can be interpreted as merely re attributing Hobbes ideas of absolute sovereignty in the form of an abstract concept of “general will”, despite him being an critic of Hobbes theory.

Critics claiming that Rousseau’s theory is a precursor to totalitarianism, I argue that their criticisms are rightfully justified. How can Rousseau be sure that the general will will not eventually decay into ‘particular will.’ Rousseau took a dangerous stance by stating that there are more rational beings than others and that less rational men have to be forced to make rational decisions which is akin to ‘forced to be free’ to realize the good for themselves and the collective. His theory includes components such as civic education, civic religion and censorship which provides the perfect means of the social engineering of the populace. Rousseau’s sanctions towards those who do not follow the general will is a testament towards the latter. It also appear paradoxical that Rousseau also wrote that civic religion requires the provision of those that are tolerant should themselves be tolerated. By taking the view that some men are less rational than others, Berlin claimed “I am in a position to ignore the actual wishes of men or societies, to bully, to oppress, torture in the name, on behalf, of their ‘real’ selves, in the secure knowledge that whatever is the goal of man.. must be identical with his freedom.” (Two Concepts of Liberty, pg 127).

Rousseau might have well-regarded intentions to promote a solution for liberty, but his theory seemed to be an impediment of it. “Rousseau failed to realise how strongly amour propre tended to assume a collective form.. In pride of race of nationality of class” (Lovejoy, essay in the history of ideas, p. 23). His theory imposes a “with us or against us” mentality, whereby citizens are threatened to follow state ideology or risk exile and even death, this in turn violates the concept of negative liberty.