Untitled

14 Susan DunnIt must now be clear that Rousseau has conceived a utopian, ethical,democratic polity that includes no channels for the expression of dissent oropposition. Having defined the General Will as infallible and sovereign,Rousseau could not logically imagine any legitimate opposition to it. Political‘‘freedom’’ in such a solidary, unified society requires submission andobedience to the General Will.And yet, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, we know that thedetermining features of democracy are the legitimacy of opposition andpolitical parties. How can there be political freedom without the right tooppose those who govern? ≥≥But in Rousseau’s utopia, those who disagree with the General Will aresimply in error, expressing selfish, ‘‘particular’’ interests that perverselythwart the common good of all. Even the majority of citizens can be inerror, for Rousseau explicitly wrote that often there can be a great differencebetween the will of all and the General Will ≥∂ (though, wanting it bothways, he also stated that ‘‘all the characteristics of the General Will’’ arefound in the will of the plurality). ≥∑ In any case, there can be no role forminority opinion. Neither dissenting individuals nor groups, political parties,or factions can be tolerated by the cohesive whole. To persist in questioningor opposing the General Will is to abdicate one’s membership in thepolity, to give up one’s political rights, and ultimately to be executed, ‘‘lessas a citizen than as an enemy.’’ ≥∏ But before putting ‘‘rebels’’ and ‘‘traitors’’to death, the sovereign people must attempt to make those who have difficultyrecognizing the General Will see the light. ‘‘Whoever refuses to obeythe general will,’’ Rousseau decreed, ‘‘shall be constrained to do so bythe whole body: which means nothing else than that he shall be forced tobe free.’’ ≥πForced to be free? These paradoxical words shock us, and rightly so, forthey cast their dark shadow on some of the grimmest periods of the twentiethcentury. Yet Rousseau’s goal was freedom, community, and morality,not mass repression. Rousseau would contend that if society constrainspeople to be free, socializes them to suppress their animal instincts andselfish desires, and educates them to choose the General Will over theirprivate wills, it is in the name of their own human dignity.Socialization and education or mind-control? The health of the societyand the willingness of citizens to obey the General Will, Rousseau acknowledges,depend on citizens’ belief in a civil religion that binds theirhearts to the State and makes them delight in their civic duties. ≥∫So essential is this religion to the well-being of the polity that nonbelieversmust be banished—not because they are impious, Rousseau ex-