Why have some critics accused Rousseau’s political theory of encouraging authoritarianism?

Critics have accused Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s political theory of encouraging authoritarianism primarily due to his concept of the general will and his assertion that individuals who refuse to obey it may be "forced to be free."12

The following factors contribute to these accusations:

• The General Will: Rousseau argued that the general will is always right and represents the common good. Critics, such as Benjamin Constant and Jacob Talmon, have argued that this concept can be manipulated by demagogues or dictators who claim to represent the general will to justify suppressing individual dissent.123
• Forcing Freedom: Rousseau’s paradox of "forcing him to be free" suggests that when an individual is compelled to follow the law, they are merely being forced to align with their own higher interest as a citizen. Critics interpret this as a justification for state coercion and the subordination of individual civil liberty to the collective.12
• The Lawgiver: To establish his ideal society, Rousseau proposed a "Lawgiver" who might use authority or religious influence to persuade people to accept the laws, a concept some view as inherently manipulative or authoritarian.4

While these interpretations have led some to label Rousseau a forefather of totalitarianism, many scholars note that he intended to defend freedom from despotism and that his work emphasizes popular sovereignty and the subordination of government to the law.14