Given Rousseau’s definition of sovereignty as “the exercise of the general will” (31) toward the common good, sovereignty is “inalienable.” By this, Rousseau means that it cannot relinquish its power to any individual or group of individuals smaller than the collective. When individuals profess to represent sovereignty or to be sovereigns themselves, the collective will becomes an individual or “particular” will, threatening equality and the body politic.

sovereignty is also indivisible, representing the complete collective will and never a partial will. Monarchists argue that executive actions taken by kings without the sanction of the collective—like declaring war and making treaties—constitute sovereignty. Rousseau disagrees, arguing that these are mere applications of the law and not law itself; therefore, they are not acts of sovereignty. 

Rousseau argues that the general will is “always right and tends to the public advantage” (32). That said, the people may be deceived as to what is in their best interest, leading to poor decisions. This is especially true when factions form, causing each faction to mistake its particular will for the general will. Factions cannot form if the state hopes to survive; instead, everyone must think for themselves so the general will may be accurately expressed.