The Failures of Social Contracts - Essay Example

Task: The Failures of Social Contracts Social contract refers to conditions and agreements that form the basis of governments’ existence and stipulates the order of administration. The observance of the full interest of the people or subjects that have the power and control over every undertaking of the government forms the foundation social contracts. The power that governments have emanates from the people as granted by social contracts. As Rousseau states, any sovereign authority, most of which emanate from social contracts, must operate within the precincts of the law (59). Anything that does not conform to the law, set by the social contract, renders the legitimacy null and negligible. In as much as many governments are institutions set on social contracts, there is a serious failure in the effectiveness to deliver according to set standards granted by the provisions of the social contracts. According to Leeson, a legitimate social contract should attest to three chief concerns. First, the contact must serve the purpose of granting political power. I should be in accordance with the joint consent of all subjects or stakeholders whose interest are represented in the contract. The main intent of the contract should be to facilitate social collaboration. The key consideration in the formation of a social contract is its aim of creating a government (Leeson 444). Leeson identifies the second most important feature of a social contract while referring to the original state before the formulation of the social contract. A social contract should serve the purpose of bringing the various stakeholders in the contract from a situation of no prior contract. The people whose interests are expressed in the contract should be in need a forum that can attend to their claims including their appeals. This, according to Leeson, is fundamental since it eliminates the possibility of conflicts and enhances sovereignty. If there is an existing sovereign body and an agreement is drafted which is legitimate, it does not qualify as a social contract. Instead, it is a contract. It does not replace the social contract that existed prior to its formation and, therefore, only remains as a contract. The third characteristic of social contracts identified by Leeson is the recognition that the agreement resulted from voluntary acceptance and approval by all parties subject to its provisions. Should any member of the society expresses disapproval of the social contract, then it no longer becomes a social contract. Every member whose welfare and other aspects of life are subject to the provisions of the social contacts should consent to it (Leeson 445). Disapproval by even one member of the society renders it unbinding to the entire population affected by it. Should there be part of the population that is in disagreement, at the time of signing, then it should constitute part of the population not bound by the provisions of the contract. Following the absence of the three prerequisites that make up a social contract in most governments, Leeson argues that not all social contracts are genuine. In Leeson’s account, early social contracts that formulated most present day governments did not meet the three requirements that should be the threshold of a legitimate social contract. Following the argument that social contracts should bear the main objectives of forming a government, Leeson renders these early contracts as out of the desired intention. Their formation was legitimately promoted by the desire to gain political rule over the people. Further concerns emanate from the approval of conceptual unanimity that never follows its provisions, as well. The emergence of pirate societies, as outlined by Leeson, did restore the legitimacy of the social contract concept. This was a possibility given the fulfillment of actual unanimity that is vital in meeting the threshold of a social contract based on the three pillars of its formation. As Leeson states, the system of constitutional democracy embraced among the pirates warrant the consideration as a formal social contract. An account of the factors that would prompt the constitution of any government or center for control, according to Leeson, highlights three solemn reasons (447). The necessity to ensure protection tops among the list. Collective bargaining ability by for the produce of the society’s members would be the second major reason. Social contracts aim at checking the excesses of individuals granted with the authority to rule. Just as members of a legal government, set through any approved social contract, would need protection, members of piracy groups need such services, as well. This was applicable pirates regardless of their state as criminals. Any society would require order and a succinct form of the organization to gain prosperity. Pirates, therefore, being a society of its members required a form of organization. This justifies their formation of social contracts that set up a form of government within the society. They needed protection from leaders who would take advantage to deny them their rightful gains, although through criminal activities. In justification of the necessity to enhance protraction of the pirates’ need for internal protection, Leeson explains the critical nature of the pirates business. This rendered them a vulnerable society of members that demanded a stringent form of leadership with a transparent hierarchy. Social contracts among the pirates embraced the virtue of democracy. It is undeniable that the apparent democratic situations, in a significant number of countries, receive little respect than the founders of the social contracts that formed the governments would imagine it to be. Challenges of democracy in most countries result from the failure to recognize the essence of good leadership, by holders of power. This, however, was not the case with the governance of pirates. Democracy and the right to follow the deal as per the prior agreement are the guiding principles of operation. This explains the extent of social contracts that form the basis of most undemocratic regimes but named as democratic, today. If the need to provide serve the people remains among the prerequisites of a social contract, them the social contracts have failed. A significant number of social contracts that set up present governments did not receive unanimous acceptance from members of the country. As opposed to such social contracts, agreements that form the crew of pirates have every member vowed and submitted an oath that show their commitment to the contract. The acceptance is spirit of the fundamentals of a social contract that require a full-members acceptance and vow to respect the provisions. Pirates had several documents signed, on a personal account by every member, which stated their loyalty. This is contrary to most social contracts that formed most governments in which only representative of the population appended signatures. It is certain that not all members are loyal to the provision of the contracts. It is certain that leaders in most democratic societies today violate the provision of the various contracts that are binding and never fail to honor their provisions. This reflects the extent to which the social contracts are inapplicable. One of the core reasons for a social contract is to form a government. Succession is part of the government structure. It is plausible that most governments have a means of successions through set laws. However, because of defiance of such legislation there are instances when people cling onto power. This is a total failure of such social contracts to check on the power holders’ decisions, which would increase their level of respect for their institutions. As Leeson states, power and succession among pirates was clear through their terms of operations. Noteworthy is the fact that leaders never betrayed even a single provision of the oath that they swore to protect. Organization was the greatest value that crews observed including on matters of succession. The fundamentals of social contracts, as argued by Leeson, have little considerations in present day governance structures in most societies. It remains evident that such social contracts did not meet the recommendations set for any legitimate social contract. The extent of violation of contracts by leaders and power holders renders these contracts ineffective. An analysis of social contracts that formed various governments’ today and that of pirates reveals the extent of such inefficiencies. Works Cited Leeson, Peter. The calculus of piratical consent: the myth of the myth of social contract. Public Choice.139 (2009): 443–459. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract Or Principles of Political Right. Kessinger Publishing, 2004. Print. Read More