Related questions:
Ø Show how the concept of
social contract could be used to defend absolutism or support
constitutionalism.
Ø With sufficient
authorities, show how the social contract doctrine has become a veritable
instrument for handling conflicting political issues.
(YOUR INTRODUCTION)
THE DOCTRINE OF SOCIAL CONTRACT
The concept of social contract is and
has been used to evaluate the political relationship between leaders and rulers
over the ages. Two major authorities that go side by side regarding the social
contract theory are ‘’Thomas Hobbes’’ and ‘’John Locke’’. Talking about the
social contract, both these philosophers presented a hypothetical (imaginary)
account of a pre-political era, which they referred to as, the state of nature.
Basically, the underlying element of their hypothesized ‘’state of nature’’ was
their conception of man i.e. what they believed and thought man is. Generally, the
idea of the social contract is an arranged agreement whereby the ruled and the
ruler activate a covenant as to how the state affairs should be run.
THOMAS HOBBES AND HIS CONCEPT OF ABSOLUTISM
By absolutism, we simply mean ‘a
structure of government whereby the entirety of power and authority is bestowed
on the ruler, whom is believed to possess the political knowhow and skills to
oversee the affairs of the state’.
Ø Hobbes’ conception of man
Understanding Hobbes’ ideal of the
state of nature begins with comprehending his conception of man. Hobbes viewed
man as an egoistic and selfish being. Although he did not specifically deny
that man had any sort of ability for rationalism, he however emphasized that
man’s desires overshadowed his rationality. The resulting effect was that, man always
sought to discover the most efficient means of satisfying his desires, even if
it was by hook or crook. So, man according to Hobbes is a competitor for
riches, honour, power, and command; and to achieve this, he is destined to
become strifeful, warlike, envious and anything which would aid him in attaining
to his desires.
Ø Hobbes idea on the state of nature
Accordingly, the pre-political era or
state of nature, as presented by Hobbes was an era of strife and hostility. It
was a time of each against all, man against man, and an insecure environment.
Hobbes described the life of man during this era as, solitary (lonely), poor,
nasty, brutish (harsh) and short. Like Thrasymachus, it was a time when justice
was the interest of the strong, for might is right. Good and bad, virtue and
vice, right and wrong became subjective and deterministic, according to the
trend of the individual. This is a brief picture of Hobbes state of nature.
Ø The intercession of natural law and right
The point at which natural law comes
into the picture, the point at which it becomes critical in Hobbes state of
nature, is its relevance in ‘’self preservation’’. As it were, the basic need
of man in the state of nature was that of self-preservation. The desire to live
a sweet, long and fulfilling life was so strong on every individual in the
state of nature. Indeed, it is a natural law that human life should be
preserved, as long as it can, for that is part of its essence. Human life
really makes no sense if it were so solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
Thus, a dire need for natural law to intervene, by instituting an environment
whereby self-preservation can be attained was necessary.
Ø The need for an absolute leviathan
In order to achieve this, Hobbes
postulated that man in the strifeful state of nature collectively and
desperately had to come into agreement to institute in place an ‘’absolute’’
government, which will oversee the affairs of the state. This absolute power
would become a ‘’leviathan’’ that possesses the sovereignty to effectively curb
the excesses of man and tame man as it were. Also this sovereign power had to
be above the law to efficiently enforce same. This was to ensure peace, order
and progress for all citizens. In other words, Hobbes used the doctrine of the
social contract to justify authoritarian government as well as absolutism. This
follows, as the idea of the state of nature was all imaginary.
JOHN LOCKE AND HIS CONCEPT OF CONSTITUTIONALISM
By constitutionalism, we imply ‘ an
organized and systematized government, whereby the people are led based on
their consent, choice and rational will, according to some carefully laid down
principles which ought to be followed by the ruler. Such a system is democratic
in nature.
Ø Locke’s conception of man
Like
Hobbes, understanding Locke’s conception of man would pave the way to comprehending
his ideal on the state of nature. For Locke, man is a rational being. Hence,
all human beings (excluding children and the mentally ill) have reasoning power
and are equal. In other words, man is a being that is ruled by his rationality;
he surely has desires but he does not allow these desires to overrule his
rationality. So, man is a being who critically considers every decision which
he wants to embark on before doing it.
Ø Locke’s idea on the state of nature
The
hypothesized state of nature as presented by Locke was a peaceful era; a
blissful haven state where man lived in solitude and community, guided by
reason. It was not a state where man lived in perpetual fear of death and
threat of life. Life was not strifeful in any way for man applied his
rationality to every single action and activity he got involved in. But,
according to Locke, the only thing which served as a potential threat to life
in the state of nature was the insecurity of property. Locke explained that
property in the state of nature was common, given the fact that everyone had a
right to draw a source of living from the natural provision which life had to
offer, as long as man was ready to exert some labour of his body to extract
what he wanted from nature. But, since there was no formal legal organization
within society, there was a potential threat to life and property as man’s
rationality could fail him at any point in time; his desires could overtake him
and make him want to take what does not belong to him.
Ø The intercession of natural law and right
Furthermore,
the point at which natural law becomes crucial in the state of nature is in its
relevance in the efficient institution of legal structures to ensure the
security of property. The only defect of the state of nature was mainly based
on the fact that it had no organization, written law and fixed penalties to
give effect to the natural rules of right. Hence, in order for man to ensure
that there was security of property in the state, he had to abandon his havenly
natural condition and by contract surrender part of his liberty to a sovereign
power that would ensure that human personal entitlements were rightly protected,
thus ensuring a more secure life.
Ø The need for a limited constitution
In order for man in the
state of nature to secure a safe state where security of property was priority,
they decided to undertake a social contract. This contract entailed that the
people gave up a part of their autonomy to a power that was meant to use his
leadership office to institute structures in place whereby there could be
security of property which was the very element the previous state of nature
lacked. In other words, this power had an obligation to be responsible to the
people, as he was not above the law, although he was the one to institute it.
In any case whereby there was a breach of contract, the people had every right
to undertake a revolution to overthrow the tyrannous power.
FINAL SUMMARY
The absolute Hobbesian idea of the
social contract was ‘’monarchical’’ in nature while the constitutional Lockeian
idea of the social contract was ‘’democratic’’ in nature. Accordingly, it is
the conception on the nature of man and the environmental condition of society
as well, that determined the social contract doctrine to be applied, be it
‘’absolutism’’ or ‘’limited constitutionalism’’.
(YOUR CRITICISMS AND CONCLUSION)
No comments:
Post a Comment