Jean-Jacques Rousseau · Complete work
Book III, Chapter 16
Book III, Chapter 16 of 49. Read it here for reference, or continue through the entire work without leaving the reader.
Open the complete readerOriginal French
Que l’institution du Gouvernement n’est point un contract.
Le pouvoir Législatif une fois bien établi, il s’agit d’établir de même le pouvoir exécutif; car ce dernier, qui n’opere que par des actes particuliers, n’étant pas de l’essence de l’autre, en est naturellement séparé. S’il étoit possible que le Souverain, considéré comme tel, eut la puissance exécutive, le droit & le fait seroient tellement confondus qu’on ne sauroit plus ce qui est loi & ce qui ne l’est pas, & le corps politique ainsi dénaturé seroit bien-tôt en proye à la violence contre laquelle il fut institué.
Les Citoyens étant tous égaux par le contract social, ce que tous doivent faire tous peuvent le prescrire, au lieu que nul n’a droit d’exiger qu’un autre fasse ce qu’il ne fait pas lui-même. Or c’est proprement ce droit, indispensable pour faire vivre & mouvoir le corps politique, que le Souverain donne au Prince en instituant le Gouvernement.
Plusieurs ont prétendu que l’acte de cet établissement étoit un contract entre le Peuple & les chefs qu’il se donne; contract par lequel on stipuloit entre les deux parties les conditions sous lesquelles l’une s’obligeoit à commander & l’autre à obéir. On conviendra, je m’assure, que voilà une étrange maniere de contracter! Mais voyons si cette opinion est soutenable.
Premierement, l’autorité suprême ne peut pas plus se modifier que s’aliéner, la limiter c’est la détruire. Il est absurde & contradictoire que le Souverain se donne un supérieur; s’obliger d’obéir à un maitre c’est se remettre en pleine liberté.
De plus, il est évident que ce contract du peuple avec telles ou telles personnes seroit un acte particulier. D’où il suit que ce contract ne sauroit être une loi ni un acte de souveraineté, & que par conséquent il seroit illégitime.
On voit encore que les parties contractantes seroient entre elles sous la seule loi de nature & sans aucun garant de leurs engagemens réciproques, ce qui répugne de toutes manieres à l’état civil: Celui qui a la force en main étant toujours le maitre de l’exécution, autant vaudroit donner le nom de contract à l’acte d’un homme qui diroit à un autre; „je vous donne tout mon bien, à condition que vous m’en rendrez ce qu’il vous plaira”.
Il n’y a qu’un contract dans l’Etat, c’est celui de l’association; & celui-là seul en exclut tout autre. On ne sauroit imaginer aucun Contract public, qui ne fut une violation du premier.
Musean translation
Mouseia’s complete machine-assisted Musean translation, made directly from the complete French text of the 1762 edition, all four books and the appendix for fidelity, the author’s force and cadence, and modern clarity.
That the Institution of Government Is Not a Contract.
Once legislative power has been firmly established, executive power must be established as well; for the latter acts only through particular acts and, not belonging to the essence of the former, is naturally separate from it. If it were possible for the sovereign, as sovereign, to possess executive power, right and fact would become so confused that one could no longer tell what was law and what was not; and the body politic, thus perverted, would soon fall prey to the very violence against which it was instituted.
Since all citizens are equal by the social pact, what all must do all may prescribe; whereas no one has a right to demand that another do what he himself does not do. Now it is precisely this right, indispensable to the life and movement of the body politic, that the sovereign grants the prince in instituting the government.
Several have maintained that the act establishing government was a contract between the people and the chiefs it chooses for itself, a contract stipulating between the two parties the conditions on which one undertakes to command and the other to obey. Everyone will agree, I am sure, that this is a strange way to make a contract! But let us see whether the opinion can be sustained.
First, supreme authority can no more be modified than alienated; to limit it is to destroy it. It is absurd and contradictory for the sovereign to give itself a superior: to undertake to obey a master is to recover one's complete freedom.
Moreover, it is evident that such a contract between the people and particular persons would be a particular act. It follows that this contract could be neither a law nor an act of sovereignty, and consequently would be illegitimate.
We can also see that the contracting parties would stand in relation to each other under the law of nature alone, with no guarantor of their reciprocal commitments, which is wholly incompatible with the civil state. Since whoever holds the power would always control its execution, one might as well call it a contract if one man said to another, “I give you all my property, on condition that you return to me as much of it as you please.”
There is only one contract in the state: the contract of association; and that alone excludes all others. No public contract can be imagined that would not violate the first.
Plain English translation
Mouseia’s complete Plain English edition, made independently and directly from the complete French text of the 1762 edition, all four books and the appendix.
Why Establishing a Government Is Not a Contract.
Once legislative power has been properly established, executive power must be established too. The executive acts only in particular cases. It does not belong to the essential nature of legislative power and is naturally separate from it. If the sovereign as such could exercise executive power, law and action would become so confused that no one could tell what was law and what was not. The political body, thus changed from its proper nature, would soon fall prey to the very violence it was created to prevent.
All citizens are equal under the social pact. What everyone must do, everyone may prescribe. But no one has the right to demand that another person do something they do not do themselves. It is precisely this right, which is necessary to keep the political body alive and moving, that the sovereign gives to the prince when it establishes the government.
Many have claimed that the act of establishing a government is a contract between the people and the leaders they choose. Under that contract, the two sides supposedly set the terms on which one agrees to command and the other to obey. I am sure you will agree that this is a strange way to make a contract! But let us see if the idea can stand up.
First, supreme authority can no more be modified than it can be given away. To limit it is to destroy it. It is absurd and contradictory for the sovereign to give itself a superior. To bind oneself to obey a master is to return oneself to complete freedom.
Moreover, it is clear that this contract between the people and particular persons would be a particular act. It follows that the contract could be neither a law nor an act of sovereignty, and would therefore be illegitimate.
We can also see that the contracting parties would be bound to each other only by the law of nature, with no one to guarantee their mutual commitments. That is contrary to a civil state in every way. The person who holds the power would always control whether the agreement is carried out. We might as well call it a contract if one man said to another, "I give you all my property on condition that you return as much of it as you please."
There is only one contract in the state: the contract of association. That contract alone rules out every other one. No other public contract can be imagined without violating the first.