Rousseau's General Will vs. Führerprinzip
A Comparative Analysis of Political Philosophies
Rousseau's General Will
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his 1762 book The Social Contract, proposed the "general will" as the basis for legitimate political authority.
Core Concept
The "general will" is not the sum of individual selfish interests (the "will of all"), but the will of the citizenry as a collective whole aiming at the common good.
Key Principles
- Sovereign People: The people themselves are the ultimate source of authority
- Common Good: Laws must express the general will to be legitimate
- Forced to be Free: Disobeying the general will means acting against one's own deeper interest as a citizen
- Preservation of Liberty: The goal is to prevent despotism by keeping government subordinate to the people
Structure
Power flows bottom-up from the collective will of the people. The government is always the servant of the sovereign people.
Nazi Führerprinzip
The Führerprinzip (Leader Principle) was the foundational doctrine of Nazi Germany, establishing a rigid, hierarchical power structure.
Core Concept
This principle placed the Führer's word above all written law. As Nazi propaganda proclaimed, "The Führer is always right".
Key Principles
- Absolute Authority: The leader possesses ultimate decision-making power
- Unconditional Obedience: The principle demanded "authority downwards, responsibility upwards"
- Leader as Law: The Führer's will superseded all existing laws and institutions
- Elimination of Debate: The system was designed to centralize all decision-making in one person
Structure
Power flows top-down from the single leader. Each level of the hierarchy owes absolute obedience to the level above.
Comparative Analysis
| Feature | Rousseau's General Will | Nazi Führerprinzip |
|---|---|---|
| Source of Will | The entire citizen body (the sovereign people) | The single, supreme leader (the Führer) |
| Power Structure | Bottom-up: Authority flows from the collective will of the people | Top-down: Absolute authority is vested in the leader |
| Core Purpose | To secure individual freedom through collective self-rule | To enforce absolute obedience to the leader's commands |
| Nature of Will | A will aimed at justice and the common good | The subjective will and word of the leader |
| Legitimacy | Derived from popular sovereignty | Derived from the leader's position |
The Controversial Link and Scholarly Debate
The connection between these concepts arises from a specific criticism of Rousseau. Some philosophers, such as Jacob Talmon and Bertrand Russell, argued that Rousseau's concept of an infallible general will that individuals must obey opened the door to totalitarian democracy.
Arguments For a Connection
- The concept of an infallible collective will could be exploited by a leader claiming to embody it
- The idea of being "forced to be free" could justify suppression of dissent
- The emphasis on the collective over the individual could diminish personal rights
Arguments Against a Direct Link
- Rousseau's system was designed to prevent despotism, not enable it
- The general will is impersonal and belongs to the community, not a leader
- Rousseau emphasized that the government must always remain subordinate to the sovereign people
Most scholars reject the "totalitarian thesis" and emphasize the fundamental differences between these concepts.
Conclusion
In essence, Rousseau's "general will" is a theory of collective autonomy where citizens govern themselves through laws they prescribe together. In contrast, the "Führerprinzip" is a theory of absolute dictatorship demanding unquestioning obedience to a single leader.
While critics have drawn philosophical lines from Rousseau's ideas to modern totalitarianism, the structures they justify are diametrically opposed in their source of authority, power structure, and ultimate goals.
No comments:
Post a Comment