To avoid brutality of the state
of nature, people agree to submit to absolute authority by forming a social
contract. Men and women express fealty towards a sovereign and in turn consider
themselves as being under protection.
This concept lends itself neatly
to the developments of the states till today: a citizen expresses his loyalty
to a state and offers to uphold the laws it trumpets in exchange for the
protection those laws bequeath upon him. Hence, men are seen as acting for
their own interests. Yet, they are also rational and chose to submit to an
authority of a sovereign in order to be able to live in a civil society, which
is conducive to their interests.
This concept is muddied away when
we see the laws being flagrantly abused and not uniformly enforced. In short,
the society is present at the opposing end of the spectrum to decency and
morality. We live in a country where all
these phenomenons are present. The laws are constantly being abused and the
state has failed to uniformly enforce the laws throughout the country.
Since the state has failed to
uniformly enforce laws and provide equal protection to all its citizens, can we
consider it a violation of the social contract? Moreover, if the social
contract has been violated, do individuals have the right to resist authority
according to Locke’s theory? And would this take us to the state of war where
there is no supreme authority? These are a few questions, which came in my mind
when I tried to apply the social contract theory to the current situation of
the country.
2 comments:
I agree with you. Why would the common man follow the rules of the land if he knows his rulers don't do so themselves. We see examples of this with almost all of our major leaders. Benazir fled to Dubai to evade being prosecuted on corruption charges, while the Sharif Brothers made a deal with Saudi to flee from prison time.
But as Rossau says in his theory, we are all free therefore the social contract is not binding n any person. Without knowing it a lot of people here in Pakistan are violating the social contract, but the question remains is this concept still relevant in today's context.
Excellent questions Haris. I think there is no doubt that the social contract is being abused in society. However, its abuse does not necessarily mean there needs to be a revolution, especially since a revolution could bring about even more problems. But a social contract remains relevant and should be actively discussed and debated in society.
Post a Comment