Tentative Answer: Comparisons between Rousseau and Madison on Factions

Rousseau and Madison both agreed that groups of citizens uniting to promote their group interest (they called them ‘factions’ or ‘partial societies’) are a threat to good democratic government. Current analysis suggests such groups are central to democracy. What differences are there between the two thinkers on this topic?

Madison addresses the issues factions pose to a republic in Federalist Paper #10. He first defines a faction as a “number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” (1). Madison explains that due to the nature of mankind, faction is a natural occurrence. Madison argues that factions pose a threat to a democratic republic because they lead to lack of representation for minority groups (or minority factions), and the government will follow the majority faction’s interest as opposed to the public good and rights of citizens not included in the faction. Madison thus introduces the following dilemma: “to secure the public good, and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our enquiries are directed” (3). In the final pages of Federalist Paper #10, Madison suggests that the system of representatives and the division of government into local, state, and federal will help keep factions at bay, working as a medium between direct democracy and a traditional republic.

While Rousseau’s vision of government was perhaps vaguer than Madison’s, his writings on the Social Contract mainly agree with Madison. Rousseau points out that the General Will is not the same as the Will of All, and that in order to make sure each voice is heard and no liberties are stripped from a group of people, each individual must participate in government and factions should not be able to be formed. Rousseau’s idea of the General Will is not something that Madison comments on, but Madison’s idea that factions pose a threat to minority groups is similar to the sentiments described by Rousseau. However, Rousseau envisions a small, city-state societal structure where direct democracy is not only possible, but the best form of governance, whereas Madison argues that a representative democracy is the best way to ensure the liberties of each individual. Madison however does mention in Federalist Paper #10 that direct democracies have been proven to work in small, homogenous societies, and that while the United States is too large to support that model, direct democracy is not to be discredited. Thus, I would argue that the only main difference between the two thinkers is that Madison suggested that small groups of citizens was beneficial to government on the local level, whereas Rousseau argued completely against factions or groupings of any sort, instead supporting the idea that each citizen should be able to represent themselves entirely.