Generally speaking, the proponents of social contract believe that individuals living within particular geographical boundaries enter into a contract (explicit or implicit) with the state. Upon entering that contract, individuals are subject to certain rights as well as certain responsibilities. That contract only ends when that particular individual dies or is exiled.
On paper, the social contract theory seems reasonable enough but upon close inspection it starts to fall apart. In even the most utopian of societies the collective resources (not necessarily economic resources) of the state are not equally distributed. In a similar manner, the responsibilities of certain individuals exceed those of others. Although, these individuals are still better than in a state of complete and utter anarchy, they are not as well off as they could be. After all, the only duty of a state is the well being of its citizens.
No theory of state is perfect and social contract theory is no different. However, it completely ignores the power dynamics between different communities, classes and groups within the state. Perhaps this is the reason for its many failures.
On paper, the social contract theory seems reasonable enough but upon close inspection it starts to fall apart. In even the most utopian of societies the collective resources (not necessarily economic resources) of the state are not equally distributed. In a similar manner, the responsibilities of certain individuals exceed those of others. Although, these individuals are still better than in a state of complete and utter anarchy, they are not as well off as they could be. After all, the only duty of a state is the well being of its citizens.
No theory of state is perfect and social contract theory is no different. However, it completely ignores the power dynamics between different communities, classes and groups within the state. Perhaps this is the reason for its many failures.
2 comments:
Social contract theory is meant to be a minimalist theory - it does not aim to explain power relations within a state. It's primary goal is to lay out the basis for the legitimacy of a state. As long as the state upholds certain rights - usually enumerated in some type of constitution - for all individuals, it maintains legitimacy. Questions of power, distribution of resources, etc. are ancillary to the primary focus on ensuring basic rights are upheld for all individuals within a state.
True, its simplicity is one of its greatest virtues but any theory that seeks to explain legitimacy must factor in the power dynamics. After all, all the military coups in Pakistan drew at least partial legitimacy from the fact the Army was the only stable institution in Pakistan and by extension only the Army could correct Pakistan's many faults. In other words Army drew its claim to legitimacy from its power.
Post a Comment