Political Science

There are various political theories developed to provided basis for a certain form of government or the way how people should behave in a political environment.  There have been theories that have been developed during the ancient times with the likes of Plato, Aristotle and Cicero providing their idea of how a state should be.  There are also the famous thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment whose ideas helped lay down the groundwork of modern democracy as well as provide legitimacy for governments on how to govern their citizens.  One particular theory that stood out among the rest was the concept of the Social Contract.  The Social Contract, as developed by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau talk about the relationship between the government (ruler) and the citizens (ruled).  In essence, the social contract is intended to promote a harmonious atmosphere where the rulers and the ruled know their roles by assigning duties and responsibilities besides the rights every individual enjoys.  These duties and responsibilities form part of the  agreement  which both parties accept and abide.  On the part of the ruler, they are expected to rule justly and never abuse their power which they wield in their capacity as leaders.  On the part of the citizens, they are expected to abide by the laws of the rulers so as long as they are just and in most cases, especially in democratic societies, they reserve the right to disobey  unlawful  or  unjust  laws should the ruler  break  the contract and abuse his power.  It is here that the social contract theory is considered more convincing in defining political legitimacy of most democratic states.

Despite offering a rather convincing argument of political legitimacy, the social contract theory is still heavily criticized.  One argument against the theory is that this  social contract  is hypothetical or idealistic.  Another point of contention is the idea of  consent  on the part of the citizenry in allowing themselves to be governed.  These arguments came mainly from those of the left side of the political spectrum ranging from  rabid  liberals to anarchists who see the social contract as nothing more than to justify the existence of the state in further limiting, if not repressing the freedoms of the individual.  One may begin to wonder what is the purpose or use of a state.  Societies try to establish some sort balance in preserving the rights they cherish and the security of a supreme authority in exchange for giving up some of these rights.  It is understood that those who accept this though  voluntary  consent is recognizing the need (and existence) of the state and in a democracy, they give it legitimacy.
The social contract theory was developed around the 17th and 18th centuries and modern critics felt this is now irrelevant.  They felt that the same agreement or consent their ancestors made centuries ago should not apply or be carried over to the present.  They feel this should not be the case and feel each generation should give their consent periodically by way of  renewing  this contract because they regard it as hypothetical and not concrete and therefore the newer generation does not feel bound by the same  contract  of the earlier ones.  Another point of contention is the implicit nature of the social contract.  The  terms  are so implicit that it can be loosely interpreted.  Nothing is definite nor absolute.  Because of this people live in a state by virtue of a  tacit  consent.  They merely abide by the rule without questioning it because they felt they have no choice in the matter.

Another issue is the state of nature.  This term harks back to Hobbes early version of the social contract.  In his work, Leviathan, Hobbes attempted to create a hypothetical situation where people would be free to live as they please without a state to govern them.  The only  governing  entity is the laws of nature where people live by their instincts since it its assumed that whatever nature endowed the individual, they are free to use it as they please.  Extreme liberals and anarchists believe this is how it should be.  They believe that individual rights are absolute and that nothing should try to impede or restrict these rights for it would be morally wrong to do so.  This is what Hobbes feared.

He feared there would be a clash of individual rights as these individuals would only care about their own interests without any regard for others.  Such as one individual who would assert his right to play loud music as opposed to one who is opposed to it.  Both parties would insist he is right and the other is wrong.   War  would be the result if both parties could not settle their differences.  The way Hobbes saw it, chaos and anarchy would ensue.  He felt that compromises had to be made to ensure order in society, hence the need for a firm authority in the form of the  Leviathan  he conjured and that members of society should voluntarily submit to the will of this ruler to ensure order.  Although Hobbes was a royalist, he also recognized the need to preserve individual rights that are  acceptable  to society that will ensure peace and order.  This is where the social contract (the way Hobbes saw it) would come into play.

This would be followed up by the different version of the social contract theories by Locke and Rosseau.  Locke lived during the time when England was ruled by the absolutist King Charles II and it was this political climate that enabled him to come up with his own version of the social contract which somewhat departed from Hobbes.  Where Hobbes wanted a strong central government (with the voluntary consent of the people), Locke wanted limitations on the power of the state to prevent the rulers from abusing it, thereby protecting the citizens who are somewhat given a degree of tolerance on how far should they obey a ruler and what needs to be done if this ruler is unjust.  This gave rise to constitutionalism where Lockes social contract defines what the rulers and citizens should and should not do to one another.  If Hobbes concept of voluntary consent is present in Lockes version, it is here.  Through this voluntary consent, the people are granting legitimacy to the rulers right to rule but would be  allowed  to withdraw it should the latter abuse his power and threaten the rights of the former.

Rosseaus version of the social contract differs from that oh Hobbes in the sense that Hobbes tended to see the individual as inherently selfish though not evil in exercising freedom.  Rosseau saw it differently.  He believed that the individual must overcome their own desires and work for the good of everyone, for the good of all will affect the individual as well.  Rosseau placed more emphasis on  moral freedom  and this could be done by compliance with the laws.  He refutes claims that this idea ran counter to freedom.  He clarified that this freedom is possible if the individual took part in the creation of the laws.  Therefore, he is not a slave of the laws of his own creation.  Therefore, it is by obeying the laws he himself helped create, he is still free as opposed to being made to obey laws created by others who do not share his interests or concerns which would then necessitate the need for repressive measures as Marx saw it where the nature of the state is determined by the ruling class.  Naturally, the laws this class would create would run counter to the interests of those not of their class and it is for this reason that repression where peoples rights would be disregarded and this creating a tense and unstable atmosphere in society.

According to David Gauthier, a free citizen is the one who willingly submits to the authority of a state because it is not only for his own good but it is something reasonable and logical to do.  For him, a government becomes legitimate if people are willing (driven by their free will) to be under its laws.  There is no need for coercion or repression to compel them to abide by its laws.  It is therefore understood they agree to the  terms  of this social contract so as long as the state is true to its form.  The rule of law will see to that.  In democracies, such laws are (theoretically) presented to the people.  By virtue or ratifying these laws, they are agreeing to the  terms  of the social contract.  Therefore, through ratification that the state receives its legitimacy.  It also follows that a just state is a legitimate state as modern political philosopher John Rawls put it.  These laws have been ratified and are therefore legitimate and binding and cannot be compromised for bargaining just because a minority is not happy with these laws.  This is in keeping with Rosseaus notion of the general will is for the good of all and although it is not perfect, the state is doing what it can to ensure that everyone is still equally treated in the eyes of the law even if there is inequality in terms of wealth.

In conclusion, this is what makes the social contract theory more acceptable in justifying the existence of governments as well as ensuring its legitimacy.  So as long as a state is just, people will continue to abide by its laws in exchange for the security the state offers as well as recognizing and respecting the rights of its citizens.  This is considered far more acceptable in democratic societies as opposed to repressive regimes of totalitarian systems or the anarchic state espoused by anarchists who still insist that rights are absolute.