Why did critics accuse Jean-Jacques Rousseau of supporting authoritarian or totalitarian government?

Critics have accused Jean-Jacques Rousseau of supporting authoritarian or totalitarian government primarily due to his concept of the general will and his assertion that individuals who refuse to obey the law may be "forced to be free."12

In The Social Contract, Rousseau argued that legitimate laws are founded on the general will—a collective interest aimed at the common good. Because he believed the general will is intrinsically right, he maintained that an individual who breaches the law is acting against their own higher interest as a member of the political community. Critics such as Benjamin Constant and Jacob Talmon interpreted the phrase "forcing him to be free" as a justification for state coercion, leading some to label Rousseau an authoritarian or a forefather of totalitarianism.132

However, many scholars argue these accusations are misplaced. They contend that Rousseau was deeply committed to civil liberty and autonomy, and that his work emphasizes that government is only legitimate when it is subordinated to popular sovereignty. In this view, the "force" mentioned by Rousseau is intended to restore individuals to an awareness of their own true interests, rather than to grant the state unchecked power.12