It's truly a challenge to review this book. I initiated my reading a long time ago but somehow lost the impetus along the way. However, I can assert with certainty that I thoroughly relished it. Rousseau's ideas have not only retained their potency but also their remarkable relevance.

Alright, admittedly, the last few chapters concerning Rome did feel a touch outdated. Nevertheless, for the most part, his concepts are highly applicable in today's context. In fact, I can clearly perceive that our founding fathers were undeniably influenced by Rousseau's utopic notions. Why do I label them as utopic? Well, he is penning about a flawless society, which, in reality, doesn't exist. Rousseau indeed acknowledges this fact, yet he presents his ideas regardless.

At its core, Rousseau's essay contends that, in order to be liberated individuals within a society, we must willingly embrace being a part of that society. The social contract, then, is the agreement of everyone (and I emphasize everyone) in a society to be part of that very society. Now, if we all concur, we will willingly make the necessary concessions. Therefore, any apparent lack of freedom isn't truly a loss of freedom because we are choosing to relinquish it for the greater good. Once we all agree to be part of the same society, we, as a group, agree to formulate laws. The people must consent to the laws that are made; otherwise, the laws are crafted based on individual opinions and desires, which isn't in line with a functioning society but rather reverts to a state of wildness, and it ceases to be a genuine society. In the natural world, making decisions based on individual wants and desires is entirely acceptable. In a society, however, this is precisely the opposite of what we should do. Once the laws are agreed upon and solidified, we require someone to enforce them. Rousseau expounds at length on the legislative and executive balance (does this sound familiar?), as the people should be the ones to make the laws, but the sovereign (as he refers to the group of people who come together to form a society and the laws that govern it) cannot also enforce the laws. We need someone else to undertake this task, someone who is part of but separate from the group. Now, when this person assumes the responsibility of enforcement, they are merely implementing what everyone has agreed to, so the true power still resides with the people. But the executive branch, so to speak, can take the form of a monarchy, a democracy, or an aristocracy. What matters is that the people agree. Rousseau expounds on the various types of rule, broadly classifying them into these three categories while also stating that there are numerous varieties and nuances. For instance, the United States is, in fact, an aristocracy (he doesn't explicitly state this - I am making this observation) because the people do not enforce the rules, and we don't even make them. So, we have a select group of people (such as senators, representatives, etc.) acting in both legislative and executive capacities on our behalf. That is a form of aristocracy, albeit with elements of democracy involved. Rousseau posits that there can be a blend of these forms of government - hardly any government is explicitly one form or another.

What Rousseau truly writes about is how to establish the most effective government, enabling people to be truly free and not just in name. Freedom, once again, isn't the ability to do whatever one desires. That is wildness, and if one desires that, they can return to nature and have it. But if one chooses to live among other people in a society, they will have to sacrifice personal desires for the majority. However, again, if one is doing so willingly, they are still free (he does stipulate that if anyone is compelled to be in a society against their will, that entire society is not operating under the social contract; it must be 100%, or the contract is null and void). He does state that this type of freedom isn't the same as complete freedom, but he contends that it is better because being in society provides us with morals, guidelines for behavior, and so on.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book as it compelled me to think deeply. I took an abundance of notes, and I relished observing the modern applications of Rousseau's ideas. Obviously, given that this was written centuries ago, a great deal has evolved since then, and Rousseau predicted certain things that actually transpired after his time. I am curious, though, because he asserts that no society can endure forever in its current state; it has to change and develop in tandem with its people, or it is doomed. The United States has not altered its style of governance at all, although it has modified some laws and updated the Constitution to a certain extent. Still, our system remains largely the same as it has been since 1776, so I wonder if Rousseau will prove to be right once more, or if the U.S. will disprove his theory...

Probably my favorite section and one that I wish Rousseau had developed further was the segment on religion. It was such a vibrant passage, and he made excellent points regarding the separation of church and state and freedom of religion (he didn't use these exact terms - I am). But what he describes is essentially what the founding fathers of the U.S. implemented when they drafted our Constitution and the Bill of Rights). I did get a bit irritated with him when he stated that an army of Christians would be ineffective and expounded on why, but many of his points are valid. Anyway, he contends that there should be no state religion and that people should believe in something so that they have a motive to fight for something and fulfill their duties, but there should be no such thing as a religious state because of the conflicts it engenders on both a grand scale and an individual basis. One aspect that I found particularly fascinating was his discussion on how a people can be indoctrinated to believe in something, manipulated into perceiving a religion where it doesn't exist, and encouraged to fight for dogma that isn't truly religion. All in all, it was a great section. I wish he had delved deeper into it.

I truly relished reading this book. I delight in contemplating different topics from novel perspectives, and although I'm not overly interested in politics, I do have a passion for philosophy. I've perused a few utopian books, most notably Thomas More's Utopia and H.G. Wells' A Modern Utopia, and it's always intriguing to me how people can have their own conceptions of a perfect society, yet the very fact that it's their own idea implies that it isn't perfect. And that's precisely why we refer to these as \\"no places.\\"

I strongly recommend this book, especially if you wish to understand how your own country fits into someone's vision of how to get it right and what it means for human freedom to get it wrong.

Rousseau's starting point is the observation that when humans emerge from the state of nature, their passions grow and their ability to conserve themselves individually diminishes. As a result, humans spontaneously seek to pool their individual strengths. The idea is to find a form of association that defends and protects the person and property of each associate with the full force of the community, and by which each, in uniting with all, obey only themselves and remain as free as before.

Rousseau wondered how this legitimate authority could be founded among humans. He rejects the idea that there is a natural authority among people, he rejects arguments of force, and he rejects the idea of a pact of submission between a people and its sovereign. The freedom of subjects cannot be exchanged for their sustenance, their security or their lives.

He therefore imagines the creation of conventions to underpin this legitimate authority: the social pact, articulating private and common interests, the general will. The social bond is formed in what is common to particular interests. When people join forces, they must learn to define their particular interests according to reason, not passion. What someone loses through the social contract is their natural freedom, compensated by a new, more advantageous consciousness.

People thus become equal by convention and by law. The general will then appears legitimate, and it is not necessary to be unanimous, but for all voices to be taken into account. The social pact gives the body politic absolute power over all its members: sovereignty, which is therefore a legitimate convention based on the social contract, common to all, useful for the general good and solid.

This convention ensures that only one's own will is obeyed. If sovereign power exceeds the limits of general convention, it can only disqualify itself. Conversely, as the law is the declaration of the general will, it cannot be unjust. Rousseau then develops the figure of the legislator (separating the establishment of laws from their exercise).

Finally, to establish government, Rousseau notes the contradiction between the order demanded by the general will and that of the natural order. General will/body will/particular will. This order is the opposite of the social order, so we'll have to separate powers, etc., to avoid straying from the collective goal.

Rousseau's ideas about the social contract and the general will have had a profound impact on political philosophy. His emphasis on the importance of individual freedom and equality, as well as the need for a legitimate authority to protect these rights, continues to be relevant today.

However, his ideas have also been criticized for being too idealistic and for not taking into account the practical difficulties of implementing a social contract in the real world.

Despite these criticisms, Rousseau's work remains an important contribution to our understanding of political theory and the nature of society.

Democracy is an overly ideal form of government for humans, due to the morals and inequalities in society.

"Only a people of gods could be governed democratically because such a perfect government does not suit humans."

Democracy is possible only for the gods.

I like the references to Plato.

Plato's view on democracy seems rather pessimistic. He believes that human nature is flawed, and with the existence of morals and inequalities, it is difficult for a democratic system to function perfectly.

In a democratic society, people are supposed to have equal rights and opportunities. However, in reality, there are always differences in wealth, power, and social status.

These differences can lead to the domination of the few over the many, and the interests of the majority may not be properly represented.

Moreover, human beings are often influenced by emotions and personal interests, which may cause them to make irrational decisions.

This further challenges the effectiveness of a democratic government.

Despite these challenges, democracy remains one of the most widely accepted forms of government in the world today.

People continue to strive for a more perfect democratic system, hoping to overcome its limitations and make it work better for all.

**The Social Contract - JJ Rousseau**

“Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” – Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Some books, when read, bring about a certain transformation within us. They make our understanding of society, state, government, and rights even clearer. Rousseau's “Social Contract (1762)” is such a book. Although written in the 18th century, I believe this book has provided a foundation for the existing institutions and social relationships today.

A social order is not something that occurs naturally. It is something that we create artificially through laws and contracts. When all the people in a place participate in a social contract, a state is formed, and through certain constitutions, a government is established. When a person violates a law, he also violates the social contract, and that's why punishments are given. Whether a person is a citizen or a foreigner of a country is determined by whether he participates in the contract or not.

The state is made up of citizens, and social contracts make a state as lively as a human being. By participating in this social contract, a man loses his natural liberty that he has obtained. In return, his civil liberty and individual rights are determined. Natural liberty pertains to an individual, but civil liberty is the liberty that a person obtains in a society. Although it is subject to certain regulations, the benefits that result from it are greater in comparison.

Regarding equality, a state corrects the inequality that occurs naturally and ensures just equality through equal rights.

The book is divided into four parts, and each part elaborates on the social contract, state, government, the components and limitations of the government, and so on.

It also elaborates in detail on the three types of governments - democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy, and the rights and differences between citizens and the state machinery. Moreover, it states that the nature of a country's resources, geographical structure, and the characteristics of its citizens determine the form of its government. Similarly, it states that the sovereignty of a government is subject to change over time. For example, a democratic government can change into an aristocratic government, and an aristocratic government can change into a monarchy.

All the contemporary government structures and political constitutions are based on this book. The government and the officials who regulate it are not masters or superiors to us. They are all administrators who manage the government. These are all temporary positions, but a government with a constitutional structure is permanent. Its sovereignty is vested by the citizens of that country and has been formed as a powerful institution.

Furthermore, what are the limits to which the government can impose regulations and laws? What are the differences between religion and government? What are the reasons for the emergence of sovereignty? Is the government's right to punish correct or wrong? What is the role of the judiciary in a country? All these aspects have been clearly stated.

I consider this book to be a primary classic that must be read by those interested in politics. I urge all those who have the opportunity to read it.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau begins with the words: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer."

With these words, Rousseau is actually examining what he sees as the foundation of society's desire to live together, which is the social contract. According to him, man is born completely free, but only becomes part of a society by voluntarily relinquishing this unlimited freedom. What holds society together is nothing other than the contract, and this contract is also the basis of his other rights. Therefore, no right can be claimed without any contract. In this context, he rejects the idea that any right can arise through force. Because a right obtained through force can be taken away for the same reasons it was obtained.

When we consider the period in which the book was published, it becomes easier to understand why it caused such a stir. In this context, although it may not be very original, it is an important book in terms of providing a source for the reconstruction of society after the French Revolution as a whole. In addition, when the author's previous book, The Origin of Inequality, is read, his views can be understood more consistently.

One of the interesting parts of the book for me was his defense of the idea of direct democracy and his opposition to the idea of representative democracy. According to Rousseau, just as the right of sovereignty cannot be transferred to others, it cannot be represented by others either. Therefore, representatives of the people cannot represent the people. The second was his defense of the idea that a civil understanding of religion would be beneficial. Although he also points out its harmful aspects, he claims that a religious understanding in which the love of God and the love of law are united, which he describes as a kind of theocracy, is beneficial for the state. He even goes so far as to think that the punishment of those who do not believe in these is necessary for social order.

In conclusion, starting from a very beautiful point such as equality, he ended the book at a point that is opposed to individual freedom. In terms of language, I would say that it had a rather tedious tone.

Every human is born free and the master of himself, and no one can subjugate him under any pretext without his consent.

The transition from the natural state to the civil state led to a remarkable change in humans. It replaced injustice with justice in their course of life and gave their actions a morality that they did not have before.

Through the social contract, humans lose their absolute freedom and their absolute right to everything they attempt or can obtain, but they gain civil freedom and the right to possess what is allowed. The slavery of desires is servitude, and obedience to the laws that we impose on ourselves is freedom.

Only the general will can direct the state according to the goal of its system, which is the common good. When interests conflict, the existence of associations becomes necessary, and the agreement of interests makes that possible.

Laws are the conditions of a civil society, and the people must be the ones who impose them, not the non-members. But how can an ignorant majority who do not know that laws can be authorized be enlightened? It is necessary to explain the goals to them as they are, bring the possibilities and times closer to their eyes, and let them know how to balance between the current sensitive interests and the distant hidden evils. In this way, their private wills will be in harmony with the social will.

It is difficult to address the public and the people because there are various kinds of ideas that are difficult to convey to them or translate into their language, and the distant goals are beyond their comprehension. Since each individual wants a plan from the government that suits his own interests, it is no wonder to resort to the sky and God so that the people will submit without resorting to force.

Nations have a tendency to expand at the expense of their neighbors, like Descartes' wasps, which exposes the weak to the danger of being devoured. Therefore, there must be a security principle to ensure stability.

The people create the state, and the land feeds the people. If the land is vast and its abundance increases, it may lead to defensive wars to protect its goods. If the land is small and not enough for the people, it will lead to offensive wars.

Equality is a theory, but if nature has made people unequal, through laws and regulations, the differences can be reduced and equality and freedom can be preserved.

Every country has its characteristics. There is an agricultural country with a specialty, and its people must be directed towards agriculture. There is a country with wide beaches, and its people must be pushed to work in the sea. There is a country that depends on trade, and so on. Laws are to ensure the rights of everyone. When these laws are violated and some people hoard wealth at the expense of others, humans return to the natural system where there is no coercion.

My dream choice in this book (books from the heritage that express the ideas of their authors) is to provide us with useful knowledge.
And I have chosen 4 of the greatest works in general: whether it is "The Social Contract" or "The Iliad" or "Oedipus Rex" or "Emile".

These works are not only important literary masterpieces but also have had a profound impact on various fields such as philosophy, politics, and sociology. "The Social Contract" by Rousseau explores the nature of society and government. "The Iliad" is a classic epic that tells the story of the Trojan War. "Oedipus Rex" is a tragic play that delves into themes of fate and human nature. And "Emile" by Rousseau is a treatise on education.

Studying these works can help us gain a deeper understanding of different cultures, ideas, and values. They also offer valuable insights into the human condition and can inspire us to think critically and creatively.

When the author wanted to have the translation of "The Social Contract" published, no publisher was willing to print it. In fact, everyone believed that since this book is academic and to some extent difficult, there would be no buyers; because our readers mostly like books that have an aspect of entertainment and fun and do not require thinking. I was forced to print this translation at my own expense. Fortunately, the first edition was sold out in two years, which showed that the intellectual class in Iran also values good books. It is hoped that this success will encourage others to even attempt to translate the masterpieces of great writers. Because there is no doubt that without a change in thinking, no kind of change in our country will take place, and perhaps one of the most effective means of creating a change in thinking is the translation of the works of great people.

From the Preface of The Social Contract

Gholamhossein Zizkadeh

This book really put my neurons to work.

Here are some ideas:

A true democracy is one where the will of all citizens is directly reflected in governance and legislation. However, this is impossible for any state formation larger than an ancient city-state due to logistical reasons.

Rousseau believed that the separation of powers in the state is a folly and only causes problems because the three powers are parts of the whole and cannot work in isolation without getting in each other's way.

When we talk about a state of law, the sovereign represents the very will of the people materialized; the two cannot have any other kind of relationship. When the sovereign takes another path or listens more to private interests (minority formations) and practically promulgates laws or governs for the particular interest, he no longer represents the general will, and we can no longer speak of the existence of a state but of the people becoming just a mob without rights.

The state apparatus must be proportional to the size of the occupied territory and the population and must be continuously calibrated to represent the people. Rousseau suggests that the representatives of legislative power represent the square root of the population of the respective state. (Here I wonder if in the case of Romania, √20mil =~4500 is respected.)

As the state conquers territories and increases its area, the branches of power become stronger and the inhabitants are increasingly isolated from decision-making and thus implicitly over time, power accumulates in the hands of a few.

Laws must evolve with daily realities, be reexamined, modified if necessary, or even eliminated if they no longer correspond.

Once the public official is paid, the citizen loses some of his power. He cedes responsibility and offers money to use his time for his personal interest or for personal gain rather than for the general interest. For the paid one, this becomes just a job, and often acts in the particular interest. During the Roman Republic, the citizens of substance considered it an honor to be part of the Senate.

Very good, quite difficult, yet this book has created for me a whole mental model of the relationship between the state, the sovereign, the representatives, and the citizens and of course the laws.

Rousseau's criticism of representational politics is both straightforward and profound.

His ideas on Body-politics provide a foundation for understanding Foucault's biopolitics, which I found quite interesting. However, there is some obscurity in his use of the word "People" when describing politics. He fails to spell out the differences between various peoples and cultures.

Another issue is the lack of economic distinctions in his work, although he does mention the problem of politicians mostly being from the wealthy class on a few occasions. Despite these flaws, it was still a great read, similar to Machiavelli.

Rousseau argues that "the moment a people allows itself to be represented, it is no longer free: it no longer exists." He believes that when citizens prefer to serve with their money rather than their persons, the State is on the verge of collapse.

He also points out that when the people are legitimately assembled as a sovereign body, the jurisdiction of the government lapses and representatives no longer exist. However, rulers often try to prevent these assemblies from taking place.

Finally, Rousseau mentions the existence of a mean power between the sovereign authority and arbitrary government, which he believes requires further discussion.

Overall, Rousseau's ideas on politics and democracy are complex and thought-provoking, and continue to be relevant today.

Checks and balances play a crucial role in any political system. They provide important checks on just about any political ideology you can think of. Whether it's conservatism, liberalism, socialism, or any other ideology, these checks ensure that no single group or individual has too much power.

For example, in a democratic system, the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches serves as a check on each other. The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces them, and the judicial branch interprets them. This way, no one branch can become too dominant.

Similarly, in a multi-party system, the existence of different political parties provides a check on the power of the ruling party. The opposition parties can hold the government accountable and offer alternative policies and ideas.

In conclusion, checks and balances are essential for maintaining a healthy and democratic political system. They help to prevent the abuse of power and ensure that the interests of all citizens are represented.

One of the fundamental books in politics and law,

reading it is a must for anyone who wants to understand the principles of contemporary political reform.

Moreover, it is very relevant to the events that the Arab region is currently experiencing.

This book holds great significance as it provides valuable insights into the complex world of politics and law. It serves as a guide for those seeking to gain a deeper understanding of the forces shaping modern political landscapes. In the context of the Arab region, which is undergoing significant changes and challenges, this book becomes even more crucial. It helps readers make sense of the current events and analyze the various factors at play. By studying this book, individuals can enhance their political awareness and contribute to the ongoing discussions and debates about the future of the region. Overall, it is a valuable resource for anyone interested in politics, law, and the Arab world.