A Study of Concepts of Will in Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès: Direct and Representative Sovereignty

Umut Turgut Yıldırım; Canan Katılmış

Makale detayları

A Study of Concepts of Will in Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès: Direct and Representative Sovereignty

Yazarlar:

Umut Turgut Yıldırım | Canan Katılmış

Yayıncı:

Kirikkale University

Ana Başlıklar:

Siyasal Teori ve Siyaset Felsefesi

Dergi:

Ekonomi İşletme Siyaset ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 1, pp.1-16

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001352389

pISSN:

2149-0732

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 The concept of popular sovereignty is exceptionally important as it forms the basis of legitimacy for modern democracies. Discussions concerning the source and exercise of sovereignty play a critical role in shaping modern political thought. This study examines Jean-Jacques Rousseaus concept of the general will and Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès concept of the national will within the framework of popular and representative sovereignty, discussing the historical development and theoretical differences of these two concepts. The primary objective of this study is to provide a comparative evaluation of how the approaches of general will and national will are interpreted in modern democratic systems. Adopting an interpretivist approach within the social sciences, this study was conducted using qualitative research methods. Document analysis was performed based on secondary data, and the obtained findings were evaluated through descriptive analysis. In conclusion, in contrast to Rousseaus conception of the general will, which manifests through direct participation and aims for the common good, Sieyès presents a conceptualization of the national will that expresses the abstract unity of the nation through representatives and forms the foundation of modern representative democracies. These two distinct theses of will and sovereignty encompass divergences on fundamental issues such as the mode of democratic implementation, popular participation, and the scope of individual liberties.

 The concept of popular sovereignty is exceptionally important as it forms the basis of legitimacy for modern democracies. Discussions concerning the source and exercise of sovereignty play a critical role in shaping modern political thought. This study examines Jean-Jacques Rousseaus concept of the general will and Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès concept of the national will within the framework of popular and representative sovereignty, discussing the historical development and theoretical differences of these two concepts. The primary objective of this study is to provide a comparative evaluation of how the approaches of general will and national will are interpreted in modern democratic systems. Adopting an interpretivist approach within the social sciences, this study was conducted using qualitative research methods. Document analysis was performed based on secondary data, and the obtained findings were evaluated through descriptive analysis. In conclusion, in contrast to Rousseaus conception of the general will, which manifests through direct participation and aims for the common good, Sieyès presents a conceptualization of the national will that expresses the abstract unity of the nation through representatives and forms the foundation of modern representative democracies. These two distinct theses of will and sovereignty encompass divergences on fundamental issues such as the mode of democratic implementation, popular participation, and the scope of individual liberties.

 The concept of popular sovereignty is exceptionally important as it forms the basis of legitimacy for modern democracies. Discussions concerning the source and exercise of sovereignty play a critical role in shaping modern political thought. This study examines Jean-Jacques Rousseaus concept of the general will and Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès concept of the national will within the framework of popular and representative sovereignty, discussing the historical development and theoretical differences of these two concepts. The primary objective of this study is to provide a comparative evaluation of how the approaches of general will and national will are interpreted in modern democratic systems. Adopting an interpretivist approach within the social sciences, this study was conducted using qualitative research methods. Document analysis was performed based on secondary data, and the obtained findings were evaluated through descriptive analysis. In conclusion, in contrast to Rousseaus conception of the general will, which manifests through direct participation and aims for the common good, Sieyès presents a conceptualization of the national will that expresses the abstract unity of the nation through representatives and forms the foundation of modern representative democracies. These two distinct theses of will and sovereignty encompass divergences on fundamental issues such as the mode of democratic implementation, popular participation, and the scope of individual liberties.

 Halk egemenliği düşüncesi, modern demokrasilerin meşruiyet temelini oluşturması bakımından önemlidir. Egemenliğin kaynağı ve kullanımına ilişkin tartışmalar, modern siyasal düşüncenin şekillenmesinde kritik bir rol oynamaktadır. Bu çalışma, Jean-Jacques Rousseaunun genel irade ve Emmanuel Joseph Sieyèsin milli irade kavramlarını halk egemenliği ve temsili egemenlik ekseninde incelemekte ve bu iki kavramın tarihsel gelişimini ve teorik farklılıklarını tartışmaktadır. Çalışmanın temel amacı, genel ve milli irade kavramlarının modern dönem demokratik sistemlerde nasıl yorumlandığını karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirmektir. Sosyal bilimlerde yorumsayıcı yaklaşımın benimsediği çalışma, nitel araştırma yöntemleriyle yürütülmüş, ikincil veriler esas alınarak doküman analizi yapılmış; elde edilen bulgular betimsel analiz ile değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, Rousseaunun doğrudan katılımla tecelli eden ve ortak iyiyi hedefleyen genel irade anlayışına karşın Sieyès, ulusun soyut birliğini temsilciler aracılığıyla ifade eden ve modern temsili demokrasilerin temelini oluşturan bir milli irade kavramsallaştırması sunmaktadır. Bu iki farklı irade ve egemenlik tezi, demokrasinin uygulanış biçimi, halkın katılımı ve bireysel özgürlüklerin kapsamı gibi temel konularda ayrışmalar içermektedir.

Makale detayları

A Study of Concepts of Will in Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès: Direct and Representative Sovereignty

Yazarlar:

Umut Turgut Yıldırım | Canan Katılmış

Yayıncı:

Kirikkale University

Ana Başlıklar:

Siyasal Teori ve Siyaset Felsefesi

Dergi:

Ekonomi İşletme Siyaset ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 1, pp.1-16

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001352389

pISSN:

2149-0732

Popular Sovereignty

Representative Sovereignty

General Will

National Will

Rousseau-SieyèsHalk Egemenliği

Temsili Egemenlik

Genel İrade

Milli İrade

Rousseau-Sieyès

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Umut Turgut Yıldırım | Canan Katılmış

Yayıncı: Kirikkale University

Ana Başlıklar: Siyasal Teori ve Siyaset Felsefesi

Dergi: Ekonomi İşletme Siyaset ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 1, pp.1-16

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2025

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001352389

pISSN: 2149-0732

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Umut Turgut Yıldırım | Canan Katılmış

Yayıncı:

Kirikkale University

Ana Başlıklar:

Siyasal Teori ve Siyaset Felsefesi

Dergi:

Ekonomi İşletme Siyaset ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 1, pp.1-16

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001352389

pISSN:

2149-0732