What is a ‘social contract’? What powers did the social contract theorists give to the state and how convincing is the theory in explaining the origins of the state?
In Political Science, the social contract theory has been used to explain the formation of the State. Though a social contract type argument was used by Greek philosopher Socrates as early as 5th century B.C, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes. After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory . Other than defining a ‘social contract’, this essay will attempt to analyse, and explore the possible inadequacies of the theory as interpreted by the 3 theorists.
“The social contract, as a political theory, explains the origin and purpose of the state, and of human rights.”
A social contract is a voluntary agreement made amongst individuals . It is formulated in an attempt to bring about law and order, and organisation to a previously ‘stateless’ society, believed by the theorists to be of chaos, violence and general unpleasantness. Under the social contract, the citizens of the newfound state submit themselves to the authority of a ruler or a group of rulers in exchange for stability and peace. Under different interpretations of the contract by various theorists, this power and authority can either be absolute or further subjected to the scrutiny of the people.
According to Thomas Hobbes, the state, headed by an absolute monarch, therefore has absolute powers. While the people under the contract surrender all their rights, including the right to revolt, the ruler in turn owe the people nothing save the need to govern. Governance in this sense equate to maintaining law and order and the resolution of conflicts. Hobbes’ theory of the origins of the state complements his allocation of power to the ruler.
In his theory, Hobbes described men as self-serving individuals who only came together for fear of losing their lives. For in the stateless society, without a higher power to protect them, men driven by greed will hurt, and be hurt by others. Therefore to protect themselves, they, being also rational men, came up with the social contract through which rights are given up in exchange for the safeguarding of their well-being. And only by giving in to absolutism, can the people have effective protection from the ruler, giving rise to the establishment of a state.
There are however, contest points in his version of the origins of the state. Firstly, given the possibility of a harsh life under a not-so-benevolent monarch, it is unlikely that men as Hobbes perceived to be be willing to give up all their rights. Secondly, Hobbes’ image of men seemed to be biased. According to him, men were solely influenced by their self-interest, in all circumstances. This notion ignored all possibility of a men’s care and concern for others, be it their kins or otherwise. Therefore, Hobbes social contract theory is though probable, does not seem to account for the origins of the state.
The second theorist to be examined is John Locke. Locke’s social contract theory was less unilateral than Hobbes’, in that he gives the people the right to depose a ruler that was not fulfilling his duties or had turned tyrannical. Hence, even though the ruler was allocated enormous power, he was still limited by his own level of competence and benevolence.
The pre-state era in Locke’s view, were similar to Hobbes’ in that people had free will and rights. The difference between them is that these people acted less out of fear than out of a sense of practicality in the formulation of a social contract. In his view, as the people subject themselves to the laws and decrees of the monarch, they in turn gain protection and freedom. Also, both the monarch and the people are obliged to serve each another’s interest. Its bilateralism allows for the people through uprising, to dethrone an unsatisfactory ruler.
Locke’s view appeared more convincing than Hobbes’ theory in explaining the origins of the state because he offers a less radical view. In his supposed state of nature, rationality other than desires play a big part in the characteristics of people. It is exactly this rationality brings about the congregation of people to form a state.
What both Hobbes and Locke fails to explain is how a monarch is chosen. Since the position of a monarch enjoys such power, as we have seen in history, and since men were self-serving individuals, then it would naturally result in people fighting to be the ruler so as to be in a position where they can most exploit others to their advantage.
Following this, Rousseau on the surface credits the state with little power, given that much of the decision making requires the coming together of the population. But further investigation would reveal otherwise. In a situtation of absolute democracy, the people are the state. Thus when power is decentralised in the hands of the people, it would follow that the state enjoy highly centralised power.
Rousseau’s beginning of the state is a more pleasant place where people live in freedom and a society without structure. These people, in contrast to Hobbes and Locke, were generous and of kind nature. He reasoned that ‘it was the so-called process of civilisation, itself, that created the phenomena of greed, lust and violence that so beset society both in his time and in our own.’ Society according to him had degenerated so much so that a new order is necessary to replace that which had rotten. This is where Rousseau’s theory stands out in that he did not specify a monarch that was to rule over the rest. Instead, Rousseau’s interpretation of the social contract as that of absolute democracy, in that the people were to come together and debate over an issue concerning all and that the opinions of the majority, termed the ‘General Will’, would be adapted as the law.
The counter-arguments to Rousseau’s theory are that, one, in order for it to be possible for all members of the state to participate in the passing of the ‘General Will’, the state cannot be too big. That is to say that each state can only have a limited population size. Also, Rousseau did not specify in his works, the origins of the process of civilisation.
To sum up, neither of the social contract theorist had managed to accurately give an account of the origins of the state. Each appeared to be more concern with finding a justification for the political scenario of their time. There are redeeming points however, in that, by a consummation of their arguments, we might be able to get a glimpse of the true beginning of the idea of the state. Also, it is an undeniable fact that their works laid the foundation for the establishment of many of the world’s constitutions and political science theories.
No comments:
Post a Comment