172 Political Theory: The Relationship of Man and the Statethinking led him to talk about the state forcing “such an indi
vidual to be free.”
Also, there is great confusion as to how the general will is to
be determined in a practical sense. At one point he recommends
a majority vote of the community. He also speaks of it as the
theoretical ideal, an absolute truth. Thus, on the one hand he is
a democrat, on the other hand, a totalitarian. The latter seems to
be his practical solution. Since modem states are too large for a
direct democracy, he favors an elected aristocracy. His opposi
tion to the bickering of representative democracy, as a threat to
the unity of the state, led him to call for the people’s will to be
exercised directly by the aristocracy or by a legislator. The
legislator is an interpreter of the general will, a kind of interme
diary, whose function is to perceive the general will when the
community is confused and/or divided, and carry it out.
Further evidence that he was more the totalitarian than the
democrat stems from his view of a state religion. Rousseau calls
for a “civil religion” to which all people must subscribe or face
exile or even death. This religion however, is not Protestant, nor
Catholic; it is rather a kind of secular commitment to the state
(God) and obedience to law (dogma), and failure to comply
carries the penalty for sin (treason). All the while he maintains
that all men should believe in God, a life in the hereafter, reward
for the good and punishment for the bad.
The form that government takes is not of great consequence
to Rousseau—government is simply the instrument by which the
general will is carried out. When a state has more citizens that are
performing an active role in enacting law than ordinary citizens
citizens, that is called democracy. When the government is put
into the hands of a few and the mass consists of private citizens,
that is called aristocracy. Finally, when the power of the people
is put into the hands of one individual, that is called monarchy.
Rousseau acknowledges that it is difficult to decide which of the
three forms is best. In fact, one form may be best for one nation
over another due to circumstances which are difficult to mea
sure. Also, in practice all governments are mixed. A democracy
has to have a head, a monarchy has to have many magistrates to
carry out the functions of government. The question is which of
the three forms dominates and to that extent is recognizable as
one or the other.