'Democratic Politics: the Social Contract'

The Social Contract is a theory often used to explain or make sense of politics now a days. It
is based on the idea that “naturally free and equal human beings have no right to exercise
power over one another, except in accordance with the principle of mutual consent”
(Neidleman, 2012). However it started rather differently; its original purpose was to ‘critique
the dominant theory of political legitimacy in medieval Europe” (Neidleman, 2012).

Lock was the one that directly contradicted this idea on his Treatises of Government. Prior to
his work, alongside with many others, it was believed that political legitimacy should be
obtain from the patriarchal power fathers passed onto their children. Filmer was one of the
biggest supporters of this idea, completely disregarding the premise of social contract theory
and calling it “inconsistent with the world of God” (Neidleman, 2012). This is why, on most
social contract theorist models, the artificial construct called a ‘state of nature’ they
developed is so important. It allows us to analyse politics through a principle of consent
rather than primogeniture.

This principle of consent is key to answer two of the most asked questions when it comes to
social contract theory. Within the normative dimension, the question of “Under what
conditions may the state legitimately act as the ultimate arbiter in relations amongst
citizens?” (Neidleman, 2012) arises. In my opinion, this question holds an important place
when talking about social contract theory as it opens up a conversation about power and
brings discussion on how legitimate the states holding it are. How they use it? And, to what
extent they should? Is the relation between citizens and state going to suffer because of this
imbalance?
The social contract has an appealing response to all this questions, creating the perfect
scenario of political power. This ‘consented relationship’ between the power of the state and
the freedom and equality of each associate is what holds all this theory together.

Rousseau and Kant will later question whether this theory could be generalized and applied to
an international arena, changing the relationship of citizen-state to state-state. “Rousseau
argues that states, like individuals, have an incentive to enter into a contractual relationship
when there is “no common and constant rule for judging” the claims made by one against
another” (Neidleman, 2012). This idea gives thought to a different dynamic where states
don’t actually work with one another just agree ‘to renounce what they desire in order to
secure what they possess’ (Neidleman, 2012). Although in a perfect world this would be the
ideal behaviour, I would be highly sceptical about whether it can actually be applied to
politics; especially because in this ‘confederation’ Rousseau imagined the lines of power are
incredibly blurry.

Word count: 482

Bibliography

Neidleman, J, (2012), The Social Contract Theory in a Global Context, [Online], Accessed
at: https://www.e-ir.info/2012/10/09/the-social-contract-theory-in-a-global-context/ , (Friday
22 October 2021).