5. He is famous for suggesting that democracy only possible in small states. What is his argument for that?
In Book II Chapter 9 of Rousseau's Social Contract, he discusses the characteristics necessary to organizing a state. He states, “The more the social bond extends the looser it becomes, and in general a small state is proportionately stronger than a large one” (185). According to Rousseau, by having a larger government makes it very complex, inefficient and more expensive. A larger state would also allow too much diversity in opinion, making it difficult to create laws that everyone would agree with. In addition, a larger state would make those in power seem less personable and less likeable among the people.
I would actually agree with Rousseau. Our government today is very large and complex, and as we study history we manage to learn more about it. I would argue that our government has managed to be very inefficient, so inefficient that it has actually shut down because final decisions could not be made. As for diversity, I do believe that it can serve a problem when trying to come to some sort of consensus, making it only more difficult for the government to properly function. That is not to say that I do not believe in diversity, however, I am merely agreeing that it complicates decision making.
The alternative to this, however, is a result of a strange, unrealistic goldilocks effect where a state is not too big nor too small, and all of the people would have the same views. Every state could be different, but they would have to be homogenous and and separate from other states in order to function perfectly. In Rousseau’s natural state, they would not interact with each other, but these states would have formed societies so they would likely interact. This would result in conflicting opinions, potential wars, and greed. What would the point then be in creating a smaller government if the end result may still be the same, chaotic inefficiency of a large state?
According to Rousseau, a government is only as strong as its people. Therefore, the larger the territory the more people and the more strength government must be able to exert over the population. In his view, a monarchical government would be able to wield the most power over the people since it has to devote less power to itself. However, he claims that small city-states are the form of nation in which freedom can best flourish, and he cites his hometown of Geneva to support this.
ReplyDelete