Montesquieu was far from the only Enlightenment philosopher to theorize the best and most practical form of government. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, born only 23 years after Montesquieu, made equally significant contributions to the Enlightenment and political philosophy. Like Montesquieu, Rousseau’s political theory, namely his ideas surrounding the “general will” are reflected in the opening words of the Declaration of Independence, “We the people...”. Furthermore, both men held the idea of sovereignty as being of utmost importance to preserving a stable government and society. However, they posited very different and distinct theories on constructing such a government, if it was to ever be feasible. 

Both Rousseau and Montesquieu derive their political theories from observations of society from throughout history, but Rousseau is more concerned with the state of humanity before any societies existed. His most famous words, “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains” (Book 1, Chapter 2) from his book “The Social Contract” reflect his core belief that only in nature can men really live freely. Before societies came into fruition, humans lived independently of each other and lived simple, fulfilling lives. However, growing populations rendered this solitary lifestyle impossible, and eventually caused people to become dependent on one another to provide food and labor.  His glorification of a primitive and isolated lifestyle has earned him the title of a utopian romantic, while Montesquieu argued that man lives most free and most protected when there is an established social order. Montesquieu and Rousseau’s beliefs on living freely in the state of nature directly correlate to their postulations of how to construct an effective and practical form of government.

​

It’s believed by many that Montesquieu greatly influenced the works of Rousseau which is most evident in the structural similarities in Montesquieu’s “Spirit of the Laws” and Rousseau’s “The Social Contract”. Both books are organized by a series of classifications of various forms of government followed, each with their own nuanced ideas. One of the most interesting differences among these two philosophers are their varying definitions and explanations of democracy. Montesquieu and Rousseau alike believe that in a democracy the body of the people holds supreme power. However, Montesquieu holds that in some instances the people are the sovereign while in others they are the subject (2. Of the Republican Government). In contrast, Rousseau holds that the people themselves are the sovereign, and anytime a populace becomes subject to a higher power it inevitably disturbs the 1:1 ratio of absolute equality (Book 1, Chapter 6). Therefore, the more people involved in the government, like public administration, will always advance a nation’s equality by balancing out the prince-to-subject ratio. On the other hand, Montesquieu would argue that even if the ratio leaned in favor of the government, that a separation of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government would evenly and justly distribute power among many people while each branch retains the ability to check other branches in the event that their governance fails to serve the people (6. Of the Constitution of England).

​

The two men have very contrasting opinions when it comes assessing the general will as it relates to man in a state of nature. Montesquieu believed that a government derived solely from the general will of the people would be impossible and susceptible to failure as men are “of a finite nature, and consequently liable to error” (3. Of Positive Law). Furthermore, men cannot make and prescribe laws without a higher power to preserve them from being infringed as men are “liable every moment to forget himself”  (1. Of the Relation of Laws to Different Beings). So when man leaves his primitive nature and becomes one with society he consequently agrees to the political and civil laws prescribed by legislators which “confine him to his duty” (1. Of the Relation of Laws to Different Beings). In this sense, Montesquieu does not share the same faith and trust in the general will of the public as Rousseau. In Montesquieu’s ideal democracy, the general will of the people is reflected in representatives and legislators whose duty it is to prescribe laws tailored to the needs of their people. Rousseau argues that only a “population of gods could have a democratic government” as it is a “government as perfect as that it is not for men” (Book 1, Chapter 4). He feels that any hierarchy of power dilutes the general will of the people, and that this form of government should be avoided and is unnecessary because “our will is always for our own good” (Book 1, Chapter 4). Moreover, he argues that the populace is never corrupt but “it is often deceived” and it is only in that case where his extreme democratic system could fall vulnerable to failure (Book 1, Chapter 4). Rousseau envisioned the most practical democracy to be one in which each person “puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will” and every member is received as an indivisible part of the whole (Book 1, Chapter 6). He further classifies this type of government as a direct democracy—where people act selflessly to support the general will of the people while coming together as a collective to form a self-governing body. In this way, one can become an active member of society while still being able to preserve their individual liberty. Montesquieu would have been a stronger proponent of this form of government if it weren’t for ubiquitous human error, and since he was an empiricist, he based much of his political thought from the mistakes of former societies. He was well aware of what both  democratic extremes looked like—extreme equality and inequality. And so with good reason, he believed that  “there would be an end to everything” if the same man or body were to exercise all three functions of government. Avoiding extremes is central to Montesquieu’s philosophical dogma, which upon first glance, would seem like Rousseau, too,  would share this sentiment. However, it is possible to be too equal or to reach an extreme level of equality that in fact acts unfavorably to the erroneous nature of mankind. 

​