http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=6399
This economic editorial outlines a scenario in which, according to the author, indicates the need for a new social contract in African states. There are a plethora of economic resources, which if used correctly, can lead to a better standard of living throughout the continent. African rulers generally are not held accountable by their constituents because there is no system in place that allows for this. Africa is full of violent dictatorships that abuse the commodities their countries are in possession of for their own personal gain, instead of serving the people of their state. For Africa to advance into the 21st century, a new social contract is needed; one that will create a system that allows the people to hold their rulers accountable for their actions and promotes the will of the people.
This article does not mention much of Rosseau's theory, although he is quoted in the opening paragraph. The author relates a social contract to an apparatus which keeps the sovereign accountable to the people and does not mention the theory of general will in his article. I believe that the 'general will' is inherent in a sovereign which is held accountable for its actions to the people. Therefore, the general will does not exist as an independent entity. Rosseau says that the common will allows the sovereign to control state actions according to the common good, but I believe the inverse is the reality; state policy is written to be the common good because the government is accountable to the people. The general will does not allow the common good to be employed in the sovereign's actions.
Is general will legitimate as an independent theory, or does it go hand in hand with a sovereign that acts in the interest of the people?
I think this is a good question and it appears that you would agree more with someone like Locke than with Rousseau.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, there are some people who think that we should not recognize borders in Africa since they are largely 'artificial' (i.e. drawn through the colonial disputes of Europeans) and help dictatorships stay in power. Other think this would mean something akin to a Hobbesian 'state of nature'. So my question is, would a new 'social contract' for many African states be worth a period of civil war and chaos? Clearly, such an outcome isn't inevitable but it is possible. What say you?
I agree that the borders drawn at the Congress of Berlin were completely arbitrary and contribute directly to many, if not all, of Africa's current problems. I do think that if African countries were allowed to draw their territories along ethnic boundaries as opposed to those of colonialism, there would be significantly less political strife on the continent.
DeleteI agree with you that the general will cannot stand independently. It must have a sovereign that acts with it. If there were no governing body for the sovereign, then the general will could easily be ignored. The driving force behind keeping the general will apparent in society is the sovereign itself. It would be very non-cohesive and non-functioning without a sovereign driving the general will.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the sovereign must come from the people, and act in the will of the general people.
DeleteI agree with your point that the general will does not exist as an independent entity. According to Rousseau: "there is often a considerable difference between the will of all and the general will, the latter considers only the common interest, while the former considers private interest and is merely a sum of particular wills," (Rousseau 182). Thus, in my opinion, the sovereign coexists with the common will. Or in other words, if the sovereign does not act with the common will, there will be a lot of partial society which common wills are very likely to split, and each faction favors their own interests.
ReplyDeleteagreed, the sovereign and the people are one, as the sovereign comes from the people as does his power.
DeleteI also believe that the general will cannot stand alone and agree with you that it is inherent in a sovereign which is responsible for its actions of the people. The governing body should be held accountable for representing the ideas of the people and without it their opinions will be ignored. The sovereign is how the people are heard and is necessary to get their voices heard. In my opinion, without the sovereign and the common will acting together, there will be a split in society because many ideas within the society will not all be recognized. This would result in only some people favoring some ideas, leaving a vast number of the society in disagreement with he sovereign.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, but how do you think that the opinions of the people should be heard? Obviously not all opinions can be acted on, how would you pick which are and which are not?
DeleteI think the sovereign and the general will are dependent on each other. I believe the sovereign creates the general will of the people because they acts as one.
ReplyDeleteHow can the sovereign create the general will? I believe the sovereign has to act in reaction to the general will, not create it.
Delete