The Instant a People Gives Itself Representatives, It Ceases To Be Free; It Ceases To Be - Coursework Example

The Instant a People Gives Itself Representatives, It Ceases To Be Free; It Ceases To Be” Table of Contents Introduction 3 Evaluation and Discussion of the Statement With Reference to Rousseau 4 Evaluation and Discussion of the Statement With Reference to Madison 6 Comparative Analysis of the Statement Grounded On Historical and Contemporary Context 9 Conclusion 12 References 14 Introduction The participation of citizens in the political system has long been a facet of several contentions and controversies. In this regard, several theorists have revealed their views regarding the political system and the different modes of representation. The notion of political representation is hereby argued to have dubious meaning in the theories of democracy. In addition, the notion of freedom, especially the social freedom is also argued antithetical in the context of the representative political system. The complexities of the society and the several political issues have further created tensions with regard to social freedom and political representation. The unequal distribution of power in the society, majorly as a result of political representation, is conceived to influence social freedom of different individuals or factions within the society1. Theorists such as Rousseau and Madison can be identified to decipher differing views and ideologies with regard to the notion of political representation. A typical understanding regarding the notion of political representation can hence be acquired if it is viewed from different lens rather than just considering the ideas governed under a traditional political system. Accordingly, political representation is argued to rest on several institutions primarily due to the presence of political diversity within the society. Furthermore, widespread contention has been made with respect to the effect of political representation on the freedom of citizens. In this regard, the views presented by Rousseau can be considered an important ground, based on which, an in-depth understanding of political representation and its influence on the freedom of citizens can be critically evaluated. In the similar context, the ideologies and views propounded by Madison can be worthy of consideration for shedding light on the notion of political representation and its related components2. Correspondingly, this essay intends to discuss the statement, “the instant a people gives itself representatives, it ceases to be free; it ceases to be”, with references to the views and ideas presented by Rousseau and Madison. In addition, the essay illustrates a comparative analysis of the views and ideas presented by the aforesaid two political theorists. Evaluation and Discussion of the Statement With Reference to Rousseau Jean-Jacques Rousseau is well known as the “inventor of pseudodemocratic dictatorships” and “the great democrat of the eighteenth century”3. “The Social Contract” is recognised as the most important political discourse of Rousseau. More specifically, his political ideology constitutes the concepts of “Popular Democracy” and “the General Will”. The concept of General Will, as presented by Rousseau, can be considered imperative in conveying the views and opinions pertaining to the Sovereign body. Interestingly, Rousseau conceptualises sovereign as to derive by the virtue of the social contract. Rousseau, in this regard, deciphered sovereignty in terms of society as a whole rather than limiting the concept to an individual or a group. He further views sovereignty from the lens of General Will. Thus, in general, one can delineate the meaning of sovereignty conceptualised by Rousseau as nothing but the ‘General Will’ of the masses. It is thus fair to say that the meaning of sovereignty claimed by Rousseau “is the General Will in action”. Accordingly, he argued sovereignty an integral element of society and the people within it. To put it briefly, he claimed that sovereignty being an integral element cannot be altered from the people and only the authority can be transmitted to another, but the General Will cannot be. Every individual thus have to participate in the maintenance of General Will existing in the society, in which, they live. In line with the argument, Rousseau further noted that General Will is inseparable and cannot be delegated or represented. Rousseau viewed of sovereignty to rest on the pillar that sovereignty is vested in the society as a whole and the sovereign authority cannot be delegated to any other individual or administration. Hence, due to the inseparable characteristics of General Will, Rousseau coined the concept of General Will as inalienable4. The notion of inalienability in the above context clearly reflects radical subversive and anarchist as the major attributes of General Will. In a broader sense, Rousseau conveys that the concept of General Will shall lose its legitimacy if people rely on master or leaders. Not surprisingly, Rousseau refuted any type of political representation. In line with the fundamentals of General Will, delegation of sovereignty cannot be perpetuated and thus, it cannot be alienated as well. The major contention of Rousseau is when the decision-making authority is delegated to one or more individuals, and only the delegated individuals can legitimately make use of the legislative power. However, he argued that legislative assembly, in true sense, is composed of the whole people living in a particular society and hence, the sovereign can act, but with no exception when the people are assembled, which Rousseau proclaimed impossible to achieve. In this regard, Rousseau proclamation that “the instant a people gives itself representatives, it ceases to be free; it ceases to be” could be comprehended merely as a vindication of the political system, as without representation no political system is possible. Accordingly, representation constitutes is viewed as taking away the creative control of politics from the hands of those who had formed it. It addition, he contended political representation an act, presenting the illusion of liberty while manipulating citizens to hide their factual predicament. Rousseau, reflecting upon the modern practice of voting in democratic political system argued that in voting, elector contemplates themselve as free, but he also recognised these individuals enslaving to others in true sense5. Rousseau’s critique of political representation can be recognised to reflect upon to legitimate any insurrection at any time. Clearly, the concept of General Will can be observed to legitimate revolt or insurrection against the existing political system. To that extent, sovereignty implying exercise of the General Will is inalienable and thus, political representation can be classified as illegitimate. Concurrently, political representation is based on Rousseau’s idea of sovereignty is unavoidable and thus, insurrection can be always classified as legitimate. Grounded on the arguments presented by Rousseau, it is always legitimate for the individuals in the society to oppose political decisions undertaken by political leaders or representatives. Nevertheless, Rousseau, by this statement, does not imply that all the decisions undertaken by political agents or representatives are illegitimate, but to the extent to which people protest against such decisions. Rousseau’s contention against the practice of representatives also seems to challenge the theoretical liberty and legitimacy upon which, the contemporary representative systems rest. However, Rousseau’s objections can be argued as pragmatic or realistic, rather than principally oriented. The use of representatives in contemporary states can be justified from a Rousseauian perspective, but if his contentions were principally oriented, the legitimacy of representative sovereignty would have been challenged. Yet, the proponents of representative democracy can be identified to contradict the conclusion pertaining to representations drawn by Rousseau, which recognises political representation as incompatible with moral equality and the liberty of the people6. Evaluation and Discussion of the Statement With Reference to Madison In line with the relations that exist among the various institutions, representation is observed as a mode of separating powers. In this regard, James Madison in ‘The Federalist’ defended different types of representations as a way of delegating authority and power. Madison proclaims that the idea of representation is ‘more consonant to the good of people than if pronounced by the people themselves’. According to Madison, the idea of representation and the dependence of government on people are not sufficient to certify individual freedom or political stability. Madison also postulates that the fear that social powers if left unrestricted can culminate in forming of factionalism, which might have the potential to destabilize property rights and to force religious ideology on the citizens. In his efforts to destabilize the harsh nature of parties, Madison thoroughly promoted republicanism7. Madison classified republic as a “government in which the scheme of representation takes place”. Madison clearly highlighted the differences existing between ‘democracy’ and a ‘republic’. Accordingly, democracy is identified to be predominately the delegation of power to government, while on the other hand, a republic is classified to nomination or election of the small size of the people of the society by the rest of the citizens. Madison contextually asserted that a republican government, which considers the democratic principles such as political equality, need to cater the needs of the entire society. In addition, Madison claimed that representation, “to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice behalf of a system of representation in the context of a large republic seems self-evident”8. He further identifies that representative assembly must be upward limit. The primary reason behind this proclamation made by Madison is based on two aspects. First, he argued that assembly cannot be very large constituting of a large population; it will simply disrupt the functioning of the assembly. Madison claimed that larger the population, larger will be the possibility of characters to fit in the republic. In the similar context, he propagated that the representatives of the citizens living in a society will be more compatible with the public welfare. Representation is therefore argued by Madison as ‘new light’ that relates diligently to his interest theory. Accordingly, it has been argued that the absence of political representation would simply result in the collision of the interests advocated by the faction within the society9. Notwithstanding, Madison contended that, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority”10. He advocated the division of the elements that built democratic representation into different institutions. Moreover, he claimed that the role of the representatives of the citizens acts in the trustee sense. Nevertheless, he further postulated that associations that promote individual autonomy by means of participation might not reveal a unified position when resolving controversial issues. As a consequence, associations may not be able represent the views of their members in the public sphere. At the same time, it has been claimed that the different associations representing certain group of the society tends to witness varying impacts and thus, it is extremely paramount that people have the access to different types of associations as well as different kinds of representation. Madison recognises the different meaning citizens when considering political representation. Accordingly, he classified human as unreasonable and self-interested and asserted that due to these characteristics of human beings, they are unable to safeguard their interests, as a result of temptations of factionalism. Precisely, he viewed representative democracy as an ultimate solution for the political system to represent the interests of faction from diverse groups. In a narrow sense, Madison recognised political representation as the best remedy or the solution for controlling the influence of faction. It can therefore be summarized that Madison views and political ideologies on republic and political representation construes that large republic will likely improve the probabilities associated with independent force. Besides, the ideology propounded by Madison that advocates the aspect of extended republic is further observed to preclude the abuses of faction11. Comparative Analysis of the Statement Grounded On Historical and Contemporary Context Over the years, several contentions regarding whether representation is democratic have been widely apparent. Notably, several disagreements can be identified in this respect. The proponents of representatives have contrasted the depiction with various components, including social freedom of the citizens within the society and democracy. Notably, the above discussions with reference to two political theorists, namely Rousseau and Madison, yielded significant understanding and insights regarding the aspect of political representation in the light of the statement, “the instant a people gives itself representatives, it ceases to be free; it ceases to be”. As apparent, both the theorists have revealed differing views and opinions regarding the aspects of political representation. In this regard, Madison argued that majority of problem faced by the individuals living in the society can be solved by extending the reach of republican government. In addition, it has been claimed that in large countries, representatives are unable to represent all the interests of all citizens. Accordingly, the argument presented by Madison can be identified as unfit to the present political system. In this regard, rapidly increasing population along with the complexities associated with the nations rather than the size of a country, act as a determinant for representatives to operate within the political system of any country. Notably, the ideology of Madison relies on the uneasy balance amid the two major functions of the representatives. He argued that the republic government should predominately focus on representing the common interest of citizens. Correspondingly, Madison can be argued to be unrelativist in displaying his thoughts and views regarding the aspect of representation12. On the other hand, the political philosophy of Rousseau can be categorised both as ‘legitimation of conservation’ and as ‘legitimation of revolution’. This is due to the element of ‘indivisibility’ and ‘inalienability’ associated with the General Will. Rousseau can be identified to clearly differentiate amid the aspects of ‘the will of all’ and ‘the general will’. According to Rousseau, factionalization, which implies a faction denoting the majority by means of debates and persuasion, eventually erodes the aspect of General Will. In this regard, the views pertaining to General Will as well as factionalization directly relates to the view of Madison, which denotes that factions is to reduce the figure of voters by creating a representative democracy founded on individual districts, where each voting is performed based on the General Will. Representatives, as reflected by Madison, reveal that citizens vote for their interests. In other words, Madison advocated that the political system of representatives to eliminate the conflict of interest might arise due to the presence of different factions within a society. In contrast to Rousseau, Madison argued that human beings are not rational to make quality decisions. Nevertheless, Rousseau recognises feudalism as the fundamental aspect that promotes representative democracy. More importantly, sovereignty from the point of view of Rousseau is inalienable and at the same time, he contended that sovereignty “cannot be represented”. Moreover, Rousseau argued that whenever people form a faction or a group, the General Will tend to generate. Here, he argues that the legislative, which is composed of representatives, will not represent the common interest of citizens or the society as a while, rather it will merely result in the representation of the interest held by the members forming the legislative. The differences between the views of the two theorists can be clearly identified by focusing upon the opinions revealed by them with respect to direct democracy and republican representation. In this regard, Rousseau argued direct democracy as a solution for ‘self-interested irrationality’ while on the other hand, Madison viewed elite republican representation as a cure to mitigate the issues that can be observed to infringe the rights of citizens13. In addition, Madison claimed that direct democracy is characterised by poor decisions. In contrast, Rousseau also viewed direct democracy to threaten the general Will of the citizens. Thus, it is apparent from the above discussion that both the theorists have revealed differing views about the political representation14. Nevertheless, both the theorists, on certain aspects, can be identified to hold unanimous views and opinions. Thus, as concerned with the statement, “the instant a people gives itself representatives, it ceases to be free; it ceases to be”, it can be firmly stated that both the political theorists have contradicting views. In this regard, Rousseau can be identified to demonstrate his refutation with respect to political representation. In addition, he claims that the political system under which, representative are elected tends to diminish the rights of citizens. On the other hand, Madison demonstrated opposing view. In this regard, Madison recognised political representation as an ultimate solution for mitigating the conflicts that may arise as a result in diversity of factions present in the society15. Based on the comparative analysis of the ideas presented by the two political theorists, it can be stated that both of them have successfully interpreted and justified their ideas. However, it cannot be denied that the idea presented by Rousseau is far from being practical in the modern political scenario. Evidently, there is no doubt that representation to certain degree sabotages the social freedom of the citizens within the society, but at the same time, there is no alternative that would be taken into consideration to preserve the rights or freedom of each individual. Thus, the idea of political representation conferred by Madison can be identified to be more realistic and practical, keeping in mind that current society is composed of diverse factions and it is not possible to preserve freedom of every faction. Conclusion To recapitulate, the discussion of the statement, - “The instant a people gives itself representatives, it ceases to be free; it ceases to be”, with reference to the views and ideas of Rousseau and Madison provided rich understanding about the notion of political representation and its impact on various aspects including freedom and sovereignty of the citizens. Political representation is undoubtedly one of the most debated topics, which has drawn the attention of several political theorists worldwide. In order to evaluate the views and ideas of Rousseau, the concept of General Will occupies a major place. Accordingly, Rousseau stated that every individual has certain specific desires, but often an individual fails to recognise it. Rousseau also advocated General Will as an essential component, which every individual must struggle to achieve. Furthermore, he contended that General Will is inseparable and cannot be delegated or represented. He completely refuted any type of political representation and stated that political representation ignores the common interests. As per Rousseau, representation takes away the creative control from those people who nominate or elect representatives. On the other hand, Madison viewed political representation as a mode of separating powers. In contrast to Rousseau, Madison recognised representation as an ultimate way of delegating power and control. While, Madison thoroughly promoted republicanism, it was apparent from the analysis of Madison’s views that he defended representation, but at the same time, he argued that representative assembly must be upward limit. Madison further claimed representation as a solution to eliminate the conflict of interest that tends to arise due to diversity in the faction present within the society. Conclusively, it can be argued that political representation, although results in ignorance of common interests and social freedom of the citizens, in the current political system, which is reflected by different factions, political representation is an essential element. Precisely, people in the modern world are seen to advocate democracy as an ideal political system, wherein it is impossible to represent a legislative assembly by a large crowd of people. Thus, with this concern, representation can be identified as an ideal solution to delegate executive power. References Curran, J., Rousseau as ‘Totalitarian’; Simply a Case of a Realistic Democrat? Theory, 2012, pp. 99-105. Douglas, R., ‘Rousseaus Critique of Representative Sovereignty: Principled or Pragmatic?’, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 57, 2013, pp. 735-747. Easton, W. E., ‘Proving a Negative: Rousseau and Madison’s Fear of Factionalism as Interpreted by Berlin’s Two Concepts of Liberty’, University of Connecticut, 2009, pp. 1-24. Hajnal, Z.L., E. R. Gerber and H. Gouch, ‘Minorities and Direct Legislations: Evidences from California Ballot Proposition Election’, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 64, No. 1, 2002, pp. 154-177. Hamilton, A. J. Jay and J. Madison, ‘The Federalist Papers’, The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Federalist Papers, , 2013 (accessed 7 January 2015). Lauritsen, H. R. and M. Thorup, Rousseau and Revolution, Bloomsbury Publishing, United Kingdom, 2011. Runciman, D. & M. B. Vieira, Representation. John Wiley & Sons, United States, 2013. Urbinati, N., ‘Political Representation as a Democratic Process’, University of Jyvaskla, 2006, pp. 18-40. Read More