Social Contract and the Government Legitimacy
The primary focus of the discussion is to provide a candid insight into the social contract doctrine and how it explains government legitimacy. The theory delves into the relationship between the citizens and the government whereby the individuals surrender part of their freedoms to a political leader and in exchange receive protection and the satisfaction of the basic needs. Some of the common names behind the theory include John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean Jacques Rousseau all whose primary aim was to justify the formation of a state. Some of the most vital tenets discussed in the social contract theory include the conception of freedom, equality, and sovereign legitimacy. However, in the wake of a deteriorating democracy and questions over the legitimacy of governments, there is an increasing concern as to whether social contract theory continues to be relevant. The discussion primarily focuses on illuminating social contract theory through the lenses of the three philosophers and further assessing whether it is still relevant with regards to the legitimacy of governments.
In analyzing the social contract theories as provided by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, one significant similarity is that all of them agree that social contract enables people to advocate for the protection of their lives, properties, and rights. They also opined that for a society to remain functional, first, individuals must have a source of authority and part of their rights should be surrendered to this particular figure. Regarding the legitimacy of government, Hobbes's version of the theory capitalizes on will, liberty, and representations. According to Hobbes, the social contract theory involves the agreement where people abandon all their powers thus allowing a sovereign government to exercise its powers without resistance from the subjects fully. The social contract can also be made through fear and conquest as illustrated by Hobbes. However, Lock does not approve of such a contract steered by fear and conquest. In his part, government legitimacy only comes when political obligations are formed through a contract approved by citizens where they submit themselves to the will of another person.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Rousseau’s sharply differs from the assessment provided by Hobbes and Locke. Rousseau opposes the surrendering of all the individual rights to someone else as this likely turns citizens into slaves. Such a contract would mean that people cannot exercise their free will anymore because they are unable to act freely. Rousseau suggests that legitimacy in government will only come when there is a representative government that guarantees its citizens the necessary rights and freedoms. Away from the theorists' perspectives, social contract theory has continued to define government legitimacy and asserting the obligations of the citizens. In today's governments, the social construct theory continues to manifest itself in various ways that the government is formed. The two important tenets of legitimacy include political authority and political obligations. Applying the tenets of the three theorists provide a clear picture of the position of democracy in many nations today.
Lock and Rousseau agree that a legitimate government involves the citizens surrendering part of their rights through free will to a government that should thereafter protect their rights and freedoms. It, therefore, covers all the democratically elected governments where citizens elect leaders and representatives who ultimately protect their interests. Democratic governments must also comply with the natural law as postulated by Locke. Governments that do not obey the natural law are no longer legitimate and thus do not warrant any form of obedience from the people. In explaining the rationale behind the dictatorship and authoritarian governments, Hobbes asserts that social contract can occur through forceful means where the free will of the citizens is not considered.
Comparing the Social Contracts of Hobbes and Locke
The author takes significance appreciation in the fact that both Hobbes and Locke have a shared vision in social construct as a tool to enhance the political stability of any state. However, they had several contrasting views regarding how the theory applies to the perspective of governments and humans. With the emphasis on the state of nature, the discussion assesses the critical differences between the two philosophers' social contractual theory. Hobbes perspective was primarily influenced by the difficult political environment in which he lived. His world was characterized by war and upheavals thus fashioning his pessimistic worldview on human nature. As such, Hobbes developed a firm belief in absolute monarchy believing that the only legitimate way of governance was through an "unrestricted ruling power." On the contrary, Locke perspective and intellectual maturity was a function of political stability that succeeded the English Civil War. At this time, a group of individuals known as the Whigs advocated for a limited monarchy.
The author candidly explains that the intention of Hobbes in advancing his social construct perspective was to create necessary conditions promoting an all-powerful sovereign. On the other hand, Locke aimed at justifying the argument that people have the ability to resist and end absolute monarchy via the rights provided under a constitution. Another fundamental aspect fronted by the article regards the etiology of the social construct theories postulated by the two theorists. Hobbes draws his theory from a notion that people, in their natural state, are interested in preserving their lives, regardless of whether it means destroying the life of another person. According to him, the society consists of people wishing to satisfy their self-interests, a factor that continuously exposes the society to perpetual conflict and war. In a bid to end the conflict and seek pleasure and pursue pleasure, Hobbes's social contract theory is born where people enter into a covenant with one another to avoid the imminent war. However, in further analysis of the covenant, Hobbes makes it clear that the contract amongst people alone cannot guarantee peace. It is in this regard that the position of a powerful sovereign.
Hobbes continues by postulating that the success of the social contract depends on the sovereign institution and how well people surrender their rights to it. However, this argument has specific weaknesses that Hobbes fails to explain. He does not provide an explanation as to why one should not break the covenant thus disobey the sovereign. As such, he fails to provide a legal rationale for which people would be held accountable to once they break the contract. The theory provided is only hypothetical because, in the end, the biggest driver in the sovereign-citizen relationship is fear.
Locke, on the other hand, goes against the tenets of "force and fraud" as suggested by Hobbes. On the contrary, he provides an argument that people should prioritize living together in strict conformity to reason without necessarily following the guide of an overriding and guiding authority. Locke draws his argument from the fact that individuals are naturally opposed to leading a solitary life. As a result, they eventually start a family that ultimately conglomerates to form a political society. Locke values the essence of community and the bestowment of power on to a legislative body. Hobbes’s paints a society where people surrender their rights due to fear. Locke on the hand stresses on the need for “a positive, voluntary grant and institution.” Unlike Hobbes, Locke intimates that the government must remain keen to serve the people with the citizens remaining ready to defend their inherent rights.
