Jean-Jacques Rousseau ve Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès’in İrade Kavramları Üzerine Bir İnceleme: Doğrudan ve Temsili Egemenlik

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 Rousseau's 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 Rousseau's 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.