The Relationship Between Individuals and Government - Research Paper Example

Introduction How do governments evolve? What factors contribute towards stable governance? Who defines the responsibilities and rules for governments and the people who are subject to their jurisdiction? What steps do governments take if their objectives are not achieved? The answers to questions like these can be found in the evolution of civilizations and the role of leadership amongst an individual or a group. The growth, sustenance and degradation of governments are dependent on how the various actors interact and control the various elements that govern the fabrics of society. The relationship between governments and individuals, which unites the latter into a ‘society’, is known as a social contract (Boucher, 2009). This paper discusses various theories on social contracts that were proposed by eminent thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Burke. In doing so, the analysis provides an overview of human nature and its contributions in the development of governments. Thereafter, the discussion moves towards analyzing the effectiveness of the United States (US) Congress as a modern element of social contracts. In essence, the analysis associates itself with the most convincing theory amongst the ones mentioned above and provides certain reasons for doing so. Theories on Social Contract The primary question when understanding social contracts is to determine how a society governs itself. Locke attributes this to the notion of natural law and says that social norms turn artificial in the midst of a contract. He believes that individuals are guided mainly by natural reasoning and must adhere to certain limitations under law. However, people are often misguided by their own selfish interests and may break this protocol. Thus, Locke reasons that people require a social contract that is governed by natural law. Social contract and harmony is enforced through a set of public institutions, which enforce law and order according to predefined doctrines besides taking corrective actions in case of aberrations on the part of people or institutions (Morris, 2009). On the other hand, Rousseau adopts a more philosophical approach by including political factors into the social phenomenon. Using concepts like the sovereign state and the rights of people, Rousseau explains that a social contract allows people to place their power and trust with the common will of the state and motivates them to contribute to the latter’s progress as an indivisible component. Thus, the precondition for a social contract is a collective entity that caters to the human, societal and political ambitions of the state (Winfield, 2008). The elements constituting this collective body are the individuals themselves, who exist and thrive under a set of laws proclaimed by the ‘collective’ state. In contrast to this sense of equality (between the state and the individual) as advocated by Rousseau, the theory put forward by Hobbes places more emphasis on the individual. Hobbes’ definition of social contract relies on the individual’s consent to conform to a sovereign authority that holds the greatest power (Erckel, 2009). As such, Hobbes’ theory indicates that the individual submit themselves totally to the state and depend on the latter for fulfilling their daily needs and aspirations. Rousseau’s approach instead envisions an arm’s length social contract that also serves as a legal tool in guiding the people and the government (Lessnof, 2001). As such, Rousseau’s definition of social contracts provides a clear foundation for people to stem corruption from the society and contribute towards the creation of a just and equitable society. Does the modern US government present the best example of social contract theory? Do they follow the tenets proposed by Locke that led to the creation of the United States? Or is the government a symbol of total control as defined under Hobbes’ theory. According to Erckel (2009), the US government (including the Congress) does not represent either theory. The Congress continues to be elected by the people through a democratic process while the state has transformed by a large extent since it’s founding. The actions of the US Congress and its heavy involvement in social issues like gay marriage and healthcare underscores the level to which the government plays the upper hand in regulating its citizens. Thus, the equitable social contract as defined by Rousseau does not seem to persist to its fullest extent in the modern era. Moreover, citizens do not have any idea on the operations of certain government agencies such as the ‘Department of Homeland Security’ and yet have to fund the latter in the form of taxes (Lessnof, 2001). This suggests that the US Congress and the government feel the need to maintain oversight and control on its people and have created laws that provide such power wherever required. The actions of the US government over the recent era can best be explained by the practical nature of governance as explained by Edmund Burke. In fact, Burke explains that governance is a form of science that evolves with changing societal needs and challenges. He therefore reasons that a social contract cannot have a direct historical precedent and needs to undergo constant transformation to keep up with civilization. This practical nature of social contract is best reflected in US Foreign policy that appears to the take the side of dominant party. For example, the government has for long supported dictatorial regimes in the Middle East as long as it suited its regional ambitions (Boucher, 2009). However, it was quick to provide support to the recent Arab revolutions through monetary and military assistance upon realizing the changing social climate in the region. At the same time, the US government maintains a passive position towards similar revolutions in Bahrain and Syria. These events suggest that modern social contracts are based on practical considerations, which allow governments to adopt conflicting positions depending on their political standing. In other words, Burke explains that social contract, as a theory, has become a tool in the hands of the US government that helps justify its various actions and decisions regardless of its effects on other stakeholders (Morris, 2009). Conclusion In all its forms, the social contract theory simply states that the purpose of a government is to ensure the protection and well being of its citizens, although it is perceived in many different ways as elaborated above. In a bid to ensure such harmony and to prevent any disruptions, a social contracts consists of an inherent provision that allows the state to enforce a common behavior on all individuals and to take corrective action whenever necessary. However, such determination can also lead to revolutions and has served as the basis for all uprisings that have occurred throughout history. Thus, Burke’s definition of a social contract seems most relevant especially when applied to latest political events. Alternatively, a social contract has become the tool for justifying governmental actions. Given the rather unclear opinion on public will, a social contract has thus been used to support a number of contradicting policies and actions. Thus, a modern social contract has little to do with democracy and will continue to be defined by the victors of political upheavals. In each case, the victors claim to be representing the popular will of the people, and can thus contain elements of the theories proposed by Rousseau and Locke. Nevertheless, the practical definition of social contracts gives more credence to the approach adopted by Burke in explaining the relationship between individuals and government. References Boucher, D., 2009. The social contract from Hobbes to Rawls. London: Routledge. Erckel, S., 2009. Classical Social Contract Theory: The Classical Social Contract Theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau Compared. Berlin: GRIN Verlag. Lessnof, M., 2001. Social contract theory. New York University Press. Morris, C., 2009. The social contract theorists: critical essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Winfield, R., 2008. Reason and justice. SUNY Press. Read More