Sovereignty Is Inalienable

The State is instituted for the aim of the common good.

• The general will alone can direct the State to this aim.

The clashing of particular interests made the establishment of societies necessary.

• The agreement of these very interests made it possible.

The social tie is formed by the common element in these different interests.

No society could exist if no point of agreement could be made.

It is solely on the basis of this common interest that every society should be governed.

Sovereignty is the exercise of the general will. This can never be alienated.

The Sovereign is a collective being.

• It cannot be represented except by himself.

The power may be transmitted, but not the will.

If it is possible for a particular will to agree with the general will, it is at least impossible for the agreement to be lasting and constant.

This is because:

• the particular will tends to partiality
• the general will tends to equality.

It is even more impossible to have any guarantee of this agreement.

Even if it always exists, it would be the effect of chance and not of art.

The Sovereign may say: “I now will actually what this man wills, or at least what he says he wills”

But it cannot say: “What he wills tomorrow, I too shall will”

This is because it is absurd for the will to bind itself for the future, nor is it incumbent on any will to consent to anything that is not for the good of the being who wills.

If then the people promises simply to obey, by that very act it dissolves itself and loses what makes it a people.

The moment a master exists, there is no longer a Sovereign, and from that moment the body politic has ceased to exist.

This does not mean that the commands of the rulers cannot pass for general wills, so long as the Sovereign, being free to oppose them, offers no opposition. In such a case, universal silence is taken to imply the consent of the people. This will be explained later on.