1. Origin of State: The Social Contract Theory
B.A-I
Kiran Sharma
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science
P.G.Govt.College,Sector-11
Chandigarh

2. Social Contract Theory about the origin of the State remained quite popular up to 18th century. According to this theory State is an artificial institution made by men and it is outcome of a Social Contract. This theory explains the origin of the State, as well as the relations between the ruler and the subjects. During the 19th century this theory could not hold grounds in face of scientific and logical arguments. The views of eminent philosophers like Hume, Bentham and Montesquieu etc. dealt a serious blow to this theory.

3. Main Supporters of Social Contract Theory:
Thomas Hobbes ( ) English Philosopher
(Book:Leviathan)
John Locke ( 1632 – 1704) English Philosopher
( Book: Two Treatises of Government)
Jean Jacques Rousseau ( 1712 –1778)French Philosopher
(Book: The Social Contract)

4. Although there is marked difference of opinion among the view points of Hobbes ,Locke and Rousseau, yet all of them agree on the following three points:
Before the birth of the state the individual use to live in the State of Nature.
State is the outcome of social contract.
The relations between the rulers and the ruled depends upon the nature of the contract.
In this theory, there is a conception of human interaction before society and state emerged. This is called the State of Nature. Dissatisfaction in this state prompted man to enter into a social contract resulting in the establishment of the state.

5. Thomas Hobbes
State of Nature: According to Hobbes man is selfish, egoist, competitive, violent, distrustful and quarrelsome by nature. He strives for power and control. Thus, in the state of nature ‘ Might is Right’ prevails and “life was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Force and fraud are the cardinal values . It is a war of all against all.
Social Contract: People decide to enter into a contract due to fear of death and a desire for good living. They sign one contract with each other saying “ I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man on this condition, that you give up your right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner.”
Relation between the Rulers and the Ruled: The contract was among the people and the King was not a party to it. Thus, the conditions of the contract did not apply to the King. People can not oppose the king. The powers of the king will be unlimited and his order will be the law of the land.
Hobbes was the supporter of unlimited, indivisible and absolute sovereignty.

6. John Locke
State of Nature: Locke is of the opinion that peace, security, cooperation and freedom prevailed in the State of Nature. People had sympathy for each other and lived peacefully. The Laws of Nature regulated the life of the people. Individual enjoyed the right to life, liberty and property which are the Natural Rights.
Social Contract: Due to absence of judicial or governing authority , life of the individual in State of Nature, with the passage of time, became chaotic and difficult. So , people entered into two contracts in order to establish the State. The first contract was amongst the people to form a State wherein the Laws of Nature were replaced by the Social Laws. The second contract bestowed upon the Government or the Ruler the limited powers to govern the people. Locke was in favour of limited Monarchy.
Relation between Ruler and Ruled: As the King will be party to the contract, he will be bound by the terms of the contract. If the Ruler fails to protect the interest of the people, the latter will be free to reject the contract and select a new ruler.

7. Rousseau
State of Nature: Rousseau is of the opinion that the man lived the life of a ‘ Noble Savage’ in the State of Nature. He was self sufficient, contented, fearless and enjoyed liberty in the State of Nature. There was no sense of mine and thine, life was simple. It was the Golden Age.
Social Contract : With the emergence of the institution of private property, the peaceful life in the State of Nature was disturbed. Mutual conflicts arose with increasing sense of ‘ mine’ and ‘thine’. ‘Might is Right’ became the rule . People entered into one contract where the individual surrendered all his rights to the collective will, popularly known as the ‘ General Will’ of the people. Thus, the right to govern himself is not surrendered to any alien party but to himself.
Relation between the Ruler and the Ruled: Rousseau supported ‘popular sovereignty’ as the supreme power was not given to an individual or a group but to the ‘General Will’ which is the sum total of the real wills of all the people taken together. The General Will posses supreme, absolute and unlimited power.

8. Criticism on Social Contract Theory Criticism on Historical Grounds
The social contract theory began to decline in the opening years of the 19th century . It was alleged to be bad history , bad law , bad logic and a bad philosophy .
Criticism on Historical Grounds
No historical proof of this theory .
Man is not individualist~ He is a social animal and has lived as an integral part of the family or the tribe.
This theory is against the course of history~ The various steps in the birth and evolution of the state had been the family , the clan , the tribe, the city state, the feudal state and the nation state.
Unit of society was not individual but Family ~ Contractualists regard the individual as the primary unit of society , while social scientists opine that the earliest man had been living in families.

9. Criticism on Logical Grounds
Criticism on Legal Grounds
Contract applies only to the parties who signed the contract .
No contract is possible in the State of Anarchy
Law and rights can be possible only in the state ~ This raises questions regarding Lockes’ perception of Natural Rights and Natural Laws in the State of Nature.
Criticism on Logical Grounds
Abrupt change in human nature is not possible .
Freedom and Rights are not possible in State of Nature.
Aims or objectives of the State are not limited as viewed by the contractualists.

10. Criticism on Philosophical Grounds
State is not an artificial institution ~ It is a natural institution which is the outcome of an evolutionary process.
State is not a toy which can be taken apart and recast by rejecting an old contract and making a new one as Locke suggests.
State is essential ~ the existence of state has been commensurate with that of man and it is impossible to think of any period of history where the state did not exist in one form or the other .
Perils Of the Theory
It can be a dangerous theory ~ it gives the idea that if men can make a state , they can also destroy it just by breaking the contract. This can give rise to anarchy .
It encourages absolutism ~ Hobbes was a supporter of absolute monarchy.
It encourages rebellion~ arms the individual with the right to revolt against state.

11. Importance of the Theory
People’s consent is the basis of state
Democratic theory~ Locke considered the government a trust which is made responsible to the people. Rousseau was an ardent supporter of ‘Popular Sovereignty’ . He bestowed the supreme power to the ‘General Will’.
Puts an end to the Theory of Divine Rights of King
Importance of this theory in practical politics ~ Many scholars regard that ‘Social Contract’ of Rousseau greatly influenced practical political events like , the dethroning of English monarch James II in 1689 , American War Of Independence in 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789.

12. (Two Treatises on Government) Relationship between Ruler and the Ruled
Hobbes
( Leviantham)
Locke
(Two Treatises on Government)
Rousseau
(Social Contract)
State of Nature
man is selfish, egoist, competitive, violent, distrustful and quarrelsome by nature.
‘ Might is Right’ prevails and “life was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Force and fraud are the cardinal values . It is a war of all against all.
Peace, security, cooperation and freedom prevailed in the State of Nature. The Laws of Nature regulated the life of the people. Individual enjoyed the right to life, liberty and property which are the Natural Rights.
Man lived the life of a
‘ Noble Savage’ in the State of Nature. He was self sufficient, contented, fearless and enjoyed liberty in the State of Nature. There was no sense of mine and thine, life was simple. It was the Golden Age
Social Contract
one contract with each other saying “ I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man on this condition, that you give up your right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner.”
two contracts- The first contract ~ amongst the people to form a State . The second contract bestowed upon the Government or the Ruler the limited powers to govern the people. Locke was in favor of limited Monarchy.
One contract where the individual surrendered all his rights to the collective will, popularly known as the ‘ General Will’ of the people.
Relationship between Ruler and the Ruled
King was not a party to it. Thus, the conditions of the contract did not apply to the King. People can not oppose the king. Hobbes supported unlimited, indivisible and absolute sovereignty.
As the King will be party to the contract, he will be bound by the terms of the contract. If the Ruler fails to protect the interest of the people, the latter will be free to reject the contract and select a new ruler.
Rousseau supported ‘popular sovereignty’ as the supreme power was not given to an individual or a group but to the ‘General Will’ which is the sum total of the real wills of all the people taken together. The General Will posses supreme, absolute and unlimited power.