z-logo
Premium
Rousseau's Critique of Representative Sovereignty: Principled or Pragmatic?
Author(s) -
Douglass  Robin
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
american journal of political science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.347
H-Index - 170
eISSN - 1540-5907
pISSN - 0092-5853
DOI - 10.1111/ajps.12020
Subject(s) - sovereignty , argument (complex analysis) , legitimacy , popular sovereignty , social contract , democratic legitimacy , representation (politics) , politics , political philosophy , epistemology , democracy , political science , philosophy , law and economics , law , sociology , biochemistry , chemistry
In the Social Contract, Jean‐Jacques Rousseau advanced an impassioned critique of representative sovereignty, yet it is often thought that his objections were merely pragmatic and that he did not consider the question of representation to be a matter of basic political right. This article maintains, to the contrary, that Rousseau did have a principled argument against representative sovereignty and elucidates the nature and bearing of that argument by situating it in response to Hobbesian accounts of representation. Rousseau's argument is shown to have far‐reaching implications, as it entails that the existence of representative sovereignty contravenes two principles central to the legitimacy of modern democratic states: the sovereignty of the people and the moral equality of the citizens.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here