“General Will” vs. “Tyranny of the Majority”: Rousseau or Mill?

Questions on Political Theory
 

“General Will” vs. “Tyranny of the Majority”: Rousseau or Mill? 

Here I will argue how, if at all Rousseau’s concept of the “general will” is different from the “tyranny of the majority” feared by Mill. The reason for this is the importance of the value of the vote in the democratic World. On one side, for Rousseau it is right to enforce the majority’s will, but for Mill it is a tyrannical action to do. Then we could question in our democracies, is it right to accept the will of the majority in every case, even if it depends on a minor difference? Are we rightfully subjects to follow and live under the will of the majority?

Ton answer whether this action is right or wrong, I will analyse Rousseau’s general decision-making, the general will, and how the government take part in it, also, comparing it with Mill’s idea about decision-making and the role of government.

First of all, for Rousseau there are two personalities in each person: one as part of the sovereign and one as a subject of the sovereign, also common good is the most important factor. As people together are the sovereign in the republic, they all come together and discuss what the general will is. The general will in this theory is an objective good away from self-interest, which must come from all and apply to all. Therefore, Rousseau believes people attend these meetings “leaving their self-interest at home” and only make decisions in the interest of the state, not in their own interest. Here comes the interesting point: what happens if some disagrees with the general will? This should be the minority against the majority, and Rousseau has an extremely twisted ideological answer for this case: people can only be free in a state, as state’s general will is equal to all individual’s will, so everyone in the state lives their life in their will. He says: "whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole of society, which means nothing more or less than that he will be forced to be free", by this he means who disagrees (with the majority) can be forced to agreement as general will is will of all and good for all, so that person is not aware of his own good, he needs help in order to see what is good for him. Also, that person is also signed up for the social contract, signed up to the decision process and by this chosen moral rules he wished to live by, therefore he is only forced to follow his own good. He is “forced to be free” as there is no harm to his moral freedom, he just forced to agree to the general will which is will of all which is will of the state which is the only place where one can be free. We can see, this is a way too convoluted understanding of freedom and common will. One’s differing opinion cannot be correct, only the general will, but that is at all times right. Individualism in this sense is meaningless, as long as you agree to the general will, you count, otherwise you are not aware of your own good. My question is: aren’t we ourselves the ones who know best what is best for us? Even the infant can express its needs, by crying it knows best what that need is, we never overwrite the infant’s need do we? So why would we do it with our fellow citizens? How come we know better what is best for those with other interests?

Mill recognises this issue and stresses out the importance of individual will instead, based on the idea that individuals need a freedom of choice, freedom of making mistakes in order to develop their meaning, their human being, this leads to the good much more effectively than any use of correction. For Rousseau the interest of individuals and the interest of all may differ, for Mill it is the same, the will of all relies on the sum of the will of individuals. For him individuals should be left as free as long as it does not harm others freedom, they should rule all parts of their own lives, avoiding that he is an overruled minority. Only basic laws should be established for security and basic moral values. Punishment from government or from the society can only be used in event of neglecting to fulfil a duty or in case of harm to others, wrong actions without harm to the society is the fault of the society’s education so it cannot be punished, society had a chance to teach that person how to act morally. As we can see, for Mill individualism is the core concept, people are following their won will, their own good, enforcement of the will of majority is prevented. He calls the Rousseau-kind general will as “tyranny of the majority” as the majority enforces its will on the rest, he has a correct point here.

            Secondly, for Rousseau government is subject to the sovereign (the people), people at their meetings always discuss whether the current government operates well and whether it can continue or it needs to be changed. This government depends on the sovereign people and only operates for preventing harm in the state, nothing else. For Mill on the other hand government is above the people, but letting them to live free, unless there is a harm to the society, then government is for preventing the harm. Also, this government is for providing welfare, education, in order to help people to become moral and good, so he later needs no correction or punishment, he can live free. This government on one hand has more power on individuals than Rousseau’s, but also it is limited, as mainly individuals count not the society as a whole and society needs governing not individuals. It would be useless if it would not provide the education and the prevention of harm. Also, this system may prevent the tyranny of the majority as not the people together are the sovereign where one can be minority overruled by the rest, there is no really a chance to get into that situation.

In a conclusion then, Rousseau’s general will is Mill’s tyranny of the majority. This tyranny of the majority can be as bad for an individual of the minority as tyranny of one, the result is the same, one is forced to accept others’ will what otherwise one would not accept.

Rousseau’s general will is idealistic, one would not put aside his own will for the general will, also the explanation of why the majority is right to enforce its will on the minority is unjust, one can know his own good the best.

Mill is right to call this kind of decision-making the “tyranny of the majority”, and believe in the freedom of the individual, and here I agree with him, as who legalise the majority’s will? They do themselves, the minority has no say in these cases in. both, Rousseau’s republic and democracies. Why would be the majority then right to enforce its will on others? This is not a general will, this is the will of the majority.