Shepherds of Men

No nation can be other than what the nature of its government makes it.

In the opening to his treatise, The Social Contract, the eighteenth-century enlightenment thinker, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, states that his purpose in writing is to consider whether it is possible to have a legitimate and sure principle of government in a political society.

This is a question more important than ever, considering the current chaos across the western world and out of control ruling elites with overreach into every aspect of our lives.

It is difficult to read Rousseau and not experience a rush of emotional turmoil. He is considered both an anarchist and a totalitarian as his propositions are presented at extremes of the political spectrum. He appears, though, not to have found a place in the middle. For Rousseau, you are either free in a state of nature, or you are part of a contractual arrangement known as society.

Yet, one cannot help being drawn to his work because of his capacity to question, and questioning is something our modern world is intent on censoring. Yet it is critical if we are to work out ways to live together in some degree of harmony.

It is also impossible to tackle The Social Contract within a limited wordcount, so this article will form part of a series in which I will address various points of this important text and how they relate to present time.

At the core of his work, Rousseau discusses the existence of a covenant made between the ruler and the ruled. His premise is that humans can only be part of society if there is an agreed covenant. If not, society is considered null and void. He argues that might does not make right, and a duty of obedience can only be owed to legitimate powers.

“Since no man has any natural authority over his fellows, and since force alone bestows no right, all legitimate authority among men must be based on covenants.”

He cites despots who give assurances of civil tranquillity to their subjects in exchange for alienating their freedom, offering an argument that resonates with our experience of the past four years. He challenges the notion of a despot whose lust for power and insatiable greed results in more desolation than civil strife.

“What do people gain if their very condition of civil tranquillity is one of their hardships?”

To speak of a man giving himself in return for nothing is to speak of what is absurd, unthinkable; such an action would be illegitimate, void, if only because no one who did it could be in his right mnd. To say the same of a whole people is to conjure up a nation of lunatics; and right cannot rest on madness.”

Yet, that is what Australians and citizens of other nations did in the years of Covid. They gave up their right to bodily autonomy in exchange for nothing more than platitudes about sacrifice for our grandmothers. Many have paid a heavy price for that – losing businesses, jobs and worse for some, lives. Hence, the right of the governments rested on a concept of madness.

It would be like a ruler proposing this to the ruled:

“I hereby make a covenant with you which is wholly at your expense and wholly to my advantage; I will respect it so long as I please and you shall respect it so long as I wish.”

Arguably, that makes the case for rendering the covenant with our governments null and void.

The individuals who govern us may consider themselves shepherds of the citizenry flock, but their sense of shepherding is baseless. However, if we the governed are prepared to renounce our own freedoms, then we give approval to be ruled despotically. Governments of the past few years have clearly shown they will issue all manner of edicts as they decide and with our permission.

Sadly, for Australia, there appears to be no slowing down in the push for more draconian law. We will soon be at the mercy of more tyrannical decision making, as we face the requirement to prove our age to access the internet. The battle over Misinformation and Disinformation is far from over, with the government continuing to discuss how it can proceed to tighten controls around freedom of speech despite the recent defeat of the so-named bill.

The re-elected Labor Government’s plan for addressing misinformation is not yet clear, but the issue remains of concern. While legislative frameworks for removing specific online content lacked support, these other actions aimed at addressing the drivers of misinformation may be considered more viable.

Despite the extreme contrast of Rousseau’s propositions, it is worthwhile to consider the questions he asks and proposals he puts forward as necessary in considering our own situations.

What do we want the nature of our governments to be?

How will our governments honour the social contract we have with them?

If they fail to uphold the covenant, what power do we have as citizens to hold them to account?

Does it suit us better to live in a state of nature, in which we live a more brutish existence with freedom meaning “independence?” There is a growing movement of people seeking a life out of the spotlight of mainstream society.

If we choose the latter, we will, according to Rousseau, be “forced to be free.”

That interesting concept will form the basis of my next article.