Social Contract Theory

Concept of State

Various jurists, thinkers, and scholars have offered different definitions of what constitutes a state and its functions. Woodrow Wilson describes a state as “a people organized for law within a definite territory,” indicating that a state is essentially an organized body of people who adhere to the laws set by a sovereign or leader within a defined geographic area. Aristotle defined the state as “a union of families and villages having for its end a perfect and self-sufficing life,” which he interpreted as a community formed to pursue a life of happiness and self-sufficiency. Plato envisioned an ideal state as a collective designed to ensure justice, harmony, and the overall well-being of its citizens. Thomas Holland defined the state as “a numerous assemblage of human beings, generally occupying a certain territory, amongst whom the will of the majority or an ascertainable class of person is made to prevail by force over any members who oppose it.” Similarly, Salmond described the state as “a society of men established for the maintenance of peace and justice, within a definite territory, by the use of force.”

While these definitions differ in their nuances and emphasis, they share a common theme: a state is a structured entity formed by the union of people who are governed by law within a defined territory. The term “state” is derived from the Latin word “status,” meaning condition or circumstances. The concept of the state was first introduced by Niccolò Machiavelli in his work “The Prince.” There are four essential elements to the state. They are

• Population
• Territory
• Sovereignty
• Government

Social Contract Theory

The Social Contract Theory has played a significant role in shaping and maintaining a balanced society. Historically, this theory holds great importance, as it is widely believed that humanity originally existed in a “State of Nature.” This state, as conceptualized by various scholars, writers, politicians, and philosophers, was pre-social and pre-political. In the State of Nature, individuals lived independently, without adherence to any formal laws or regulations, and their actions were governed solely by what is referred to as the Law of Nature.

Different thinkers have offered varied interpretations of the State of Nature. Some viewed it as an idyllic state of joy and simplicity, while others perceived it as harsh and cruel, marked by insecurity and uncertainty. Despite these differing opinions, there is a consensus among these thinkers that those living in the State of Nature were compelled, for various reasons, to transition from this state to a more structured and organized civil society. The formation of civil society was thus seen as the outcome of a mutual agreement, where individuals collectively agreed to replace the State of Nature with a society governed by laws and mutual cooperation.

Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes posited that to escape the chaos of the State of Nature and enter into a civil society, an agreement is essential. However, in the State of Nature, such agreements are impossible because there is neither law nor a common power to enforce them. Without a common authority to compel adherence, any agreement made in this initial state would be null and void. He argued that in the absence of such a power, there is no assurance that others will honor their commitments, leaving individuals vulnerable to betrayal, which contradicts the Right of Nature.

Hobbes described the State of Nature as a dreadful condition where man is the enemy of man. In this state, humans, being inherently selfish, brutal, and aggressive, are driven by the need to defend themselves, often through violence. This environment is devoid of peace, security, justice, and other societal benefits, and is instead marked by constant fear and the threat of violent death. The law of nature, guided by common sense, leads individuals to compete with others, either for gain, safety, or glory, resulting in a life that is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

To end the State of Nature, people collectively agree to a social contract. Hobbes argued that the law of nature instructs individuals to surrender their natural rights to a sovereign, whether a single ruler or an assembly, in exchange for the protection and benefits of a commonwealth. This agreement establishes the State, with the sovereign wielding authority over the subjects, ensuring security and order.

Hobbes’s theory emphasizes that the legitimacy of Leviathan’s authority stems from the consent of the governed. While people may be compelled to obey a de facto sovereign, their moral obligation to do so arises only from the consent given to the Leviathan they have empowered. His social contract was an attempt to address the question of why individuals obey the State, framing it as an analytical issue rather than a historical one. For Hobbes, the origin of the State is rooted in reason rather than chronology, emphasizing that politics should align with human nature, which encompasses reason but is not entirely governed by it. The social contract, as Hobbes envisioned, is necessary to transform the chaos of man’s natural state into peace, without altering human nature itself.

As time passed, humans grew increasingly dissatisfied with the life of constant fear inherent in the State of Nature. Their social instincts began to assert themselves, driving a desire for an environment where life and property were secure. A. Hecker observed that “this State of Nature eventually proved to be either impossible or undesirable to maintain.” At a certain point, those living in the State of Nature recognized the need for change, leading them to come together and establish social and political institutions through an agreement known as a social contract, covenant, or social compact. This agreement marked the beginning of social and political authority.

Hobbes explained that the only way to establish a common power capable of defending people from external invasions and internal conflicts was for individuals to confer all their power and strength upon one man or an assembly of men. This collective transfer of power was more than just consent; it was a true unity of wills under one supreme authority.

To escape the pervasive fear, people decided to surrender their individual rights to a Lord Protector, who would safeguard their rights, duties, and social justice. They declared, “I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man or assembly of men, on the condition that you do the same, and authorize all his actions in like manner.” This collective agreement formed the basis of the Commonwealth.

The assembly of individuals, driven by their social instincts, was the foundation of the social contract and the origin of the State. This motivation led them to abandon the brutish and chaotic State of Nature and establish a civilized society with social order.

John Locke

Having described the State of Nature as a condition marked by peace and mutual aid, and having defined natural rights as fundamental and prior even to society, Locke advanced the notion of civil society as emerging from the consent of its members. This aspect of his theory encountered inherent contradictions between his borrowings from Hooker and alignments with Hobbes. Locke defined civil power as “the right of making laws with penalties… for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws… all this only for public good.”

John Locke is considered one of the most influential political philosophers of modern times. In his “Two Treatises of Government,” he argued against the idea that all people are naturally subject to a monarch by divine right, defending the notion that men are naturally free and equal. Locke contended that people possess inherent rights, such as the rights to life, liberty, and property, which exist independently of any government. He proposed that legitimate political authority arises from a Social Contract, wherein individuals in the State of Nature transfer some of their rights to a government to secure the stable enjoyment of their lives, liberties, and properties. Since governments are created by the consent of the governed to protect these rights and promote the public good, they can be resisted or replaced if they fail to fulfill these purposes.

Locke often used the term “property” broadly to encompass the three natural rights: life, liberty, and estate (property). He maintained that the primary reason for entering into a social contract and forming a government was to preserve these rights, which were vulnerable in the State of Nature due to the absence of a uniform legal framework, an impartial judiciary, and an effective enforcement mechanism. Locke argued that individuals consented to create a State to mitigate these uncertainties and protect their rights.

Locke stated, “The reason why men give up the State of Nature for civil society is the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates, which I call by the general name property.” Thus, according to Locke, property—and by extension, natural rights—precedes the establishment of society, the State, and government. These political institutions exist to protect the natural rights of individuals, which are intrinsic to the human condition and constitute indefeasible claims against both society and government.

To secure these rights effectively within civil society, Locke identified three essential provisions:

(a) A standardized interpretation of the law of nature,

(b) An impartial authority to adjudicate disputes according to this interpretation, and

(c) The use of the community’s force to enforce judgments and defend against external threats.

In other words, the protection of these rights requires the establishment of the three branches of government: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Hence, individuals enter into a social contract to better protect their natural rights by creating these institutions.

Jean Jacques Rousseau

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s contributions to political theory are deeply intertwined with his personal beliefs and experiences. Rousseau was neither a statesman nor a scholar in the traditional sense, and he prided himself on this fact. His political and social ideas reached their peak in his seminal works, “The Social Contract” and “Emile,” published in 1762.

In “The Social Contract”, Rousseau presented a theory of the state that begins with the recognition that there comes a point in human development when individuals can no longer sustain themselves in their primitive independence. For the sake of self-preservation, they must unite to form a political society. He articulated the problem as finding a form of association that defends and protects the individual while allowing them to remain as free as they were before. The solution, according to him, lies in the Social Contract, where individuals collectively surrender their natural rights to the community, thereby creating a political society.

Rousseau believed that authority could only be justified and liberty preserved through mutual agreement and consent. Each individual alienates their natural rights to the community as a whole, ensuring that no one has an incentive to make the conditions burdensome for others. This total alienation is crucial because if individuals retained certain rights, there would be no common superior to mediate between them and the public, leading to a breakdown of the association into either anarchy or tyranny.

The contract Rousseau described is social, not governmental. Unlike Hobbes, who envisioned a surrender of rights to a sovereign, he argued that the community itself holds sovereignty. The State is not external to the individual but is the essence of their being. For Rousseau, liberty and authority are not in conflict when authority is vested in the people as a whole. The Social Contract is, therefore, not an agreement with a ruler but a collective agreement among the people, with the government merely acting as an agent of the people’s will.

He emphasized that the sovereign is the collective community in its legislative capacity, not a monarch or government. The Social Contract, in his view, is the foundation of a society where individuals, while united with their fellows, remain free. The community, or State, is more than just the sum of its individual members; it is a corporate entity with its own life and purpose, distinct from those of its individual members.

He asserted that the transition from the natural state to the civil state is the awakening of a sense of justice and duty in humans. This transition transforms individuals from limited, instinct-driven beings into reasoning, moral agents. For him, the state is essential for the development of a moral life, as it provides the structure within which individuals’ natural instincts for justice can evolve into a conscious sense of duty. This view reflects his belief in the State as an organism that nurtures the moral development of its members.