According to Hobbes the established civil state backed by the sovereignty becomes the supreme authority with absolute power, therefore make the law and enforces it by such powers, this implies that whoever went against or offended the law was to be punished or convicted thus citizens will fear to break the law because of the penalty or the consequences, there by keeping law and order in the society which will definitely lead to social harmony.
JOHN LOCKE
Locke born in 1632 primarily an academician with subversive opinion. In 1667 Locke became a close friend and adviser to lord Ashley during the struggle for the succession to the English throne. Following the revolution, Locke wrote two treatises which changed him to meddler of high politics.
Locke like many theorists was influenced by Hobbes and Robert Filmer (established his theory) in view of the state and individual, that is the authority of state and freedom of individuals basing on the concepts of; state of nature and social contract. But we should note that he advances with a radical notion. Locke’s second treatise of civil government considered a reverse for absolutism as was argued by Hobbes earlier yet in his first treatise he directly attacked Filmer’s theory of ‘Divine Right of king’ (Natural power of kings).
Locke like Hobbes believed in the state of nature in which human beings had fundamental rights and obligation as God’s creation (pre-civil state) such human rights included; right to life, liberty, property without denial by any social organisation and the rule should be by nature, where every one is equal, but he had a presumption that human beings are rational thus can observe moral truth. This implies that according to Locke, human being did not live in the state of fear because individuals could treat each other freely and independently.
However Locke still points out that some dangers can not be contained by the state of nature (for example chaos), especially where there is no written law and a specified body to enforce the law of nature such as the judicially that can stipulate the penalties in case of any offence, in such a situation individuals take the law in their hands thus anarchy or chaos.
It is due that situation that Locke argued for the need of the political authority to ensure orderly and lawful process that could not be achieved in the state of nature (similar to Hobbes’). But Locke puts it categorically clear that individuals should be prepared before they entrust their liberty to the body (government) so that they willingly more so on majority basis (social contract) and thus the entrusted government should only work for the interest of the citizens that is to say executing their rights of nature as was enjoyed before the formation of civil government.
According to Locke the civil state’s (political government) authority is subject to the conditions of the trust and that individuals are only obliged to obey the state when it (state) fulfils its contractual conditions as evidenced by
‘…. The authority and power of government is limited by its central under lying purpose – to respect and defend the natural rights of the individual. (such that) …… if government fails to discharge its responsibilities to its subjects, or abuse those powers in an oppressive or tyrannical manner, or rules without obtaining the consent of the governed, then under all those circumstances the individuals who form civil society may exercise their right of rebellion …’
In other wards to Locke individuals should not be ruled with out consent that is the state has no absolute authority.
JEAN- JACQUES ROUSSEAU
Rousseau born 1712 in Calvinist Geneva and was destined for the life of an artist. He like Hobbes and Locke based his theory on the concept of social contract although according to him, the state did not possess rights over the individuals other than serving their interests. Actually in his social contract 1762 masterly work, he points out the ideal social contract and political order. The social contract according to Rousseau presents a collection of independent citizens in the community with high moral value. In trying to draw the boundary between authority of the state and the individual freedom Rousseau uses the notion of ideal social contract in comparison with the civil society (corrupt and unequal) that legitimised inequalities by instilling the rule of powerful and rich over the weak and poor.
Rousseau in his idealised social contract argues that the general will is the core of the social co-operative and political order, implying that citizens agree together giving out their liberty to form a communal body based on general will that is a legislative assembly where each individual is a participant as revealed in the statement ‘…. Each of us puts his person and his full power in common under the supreme direction of the general will’. In making policy decisions and laws before which they are all equal. He further emphasises that citizens should think and act in public spirit manner to account for common good and as a sovereign assembly eligible to coerce those who fail to abide by the common law though still in the interest of the real individual will.
Hobbes Locke and Rousseau, in their theories of political obligation and social contract, tried to draw boundaries between state authority and individual freedom, in line of, aspects-state, human nature, social contract, individual and freedom. Upon, this had similar and varying arguments.
STATE, is established on voluntary agreement amongst citizens through the social contract. With an obligation of pursing their people’s interest as individuals according to Locke. Hobbes, argued, that the state is a sovereign and unlimited power, but to Rousseau, state is a communal body for the general will. We note that Locke’s individuals maintain a degree of their rights in the social contract, in that; it has conditions, which have to be fulfilled. In other words, tries to strike a balance that can counter the two parties in case of any offence, or tyrannical rule. Unlike Hobbes’ absolute sovereignty, which instead becomes more fearful than was in the natural state. Yet men established the sovereign state to protect them from fear against each other (self-seeking-collision), thus, an unbalanced contract. As Hobbes gets on one extreme end (absolute), Rousseau gets on the other extreme, (sovereign assembly-general will). But he did not foresee the likely fact, that even the so-called sovereign assembly can oppress the individual, or have varying opinions with the common good that can cause collision
.
SOCIAL CONTRACT, transforms the state from nature to the civil society. To Hobbes it authorises everything sovereign do (agent). But we note that it is not a direct contract because men forsake their rights as the price for security, yet get no consideration (no binding condition) in that; the absolute sovereign was not even a party to contract. This if compared to Locke’s argument, that men should be prepared before they enter any contract and actually puts it categorically clear that, the entrusted government should work for the interest of people, though the citizens have an obligation to obey. Rousseau on the other hand, emphasizes the general will, to him it’s every right, which practically may not be the case because different perceptions of self-interests or groups can occur. So it is quite irrational to strike a balance between the parties involved.
Human nature, to Hobbes is egotistic and selfish, in other words self-seeking, to Locke; human nature is rational and moral. In fact to him in the state of nature, men did not live in fear because they treated each other freely and independently, so is Rousseau’s argument (human nature-rational). However, Rousseau in the general will ignored the fact that different opinions (interest) exist, that may lead to self-seeking behaviour just like Hobbes. And indeed this is true human nature is selfish. Individuals are possessive (unrestricted pursuit of human goods) implying that their rights are unlimited. So to avoid collision of rights, the civil society is established in which, the civil law will apply. Meaning that freedom will lie in their obedience of the law while the state authority is granted by individuals’ consent thus transferring their rights and power .
In conclusion, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau draw the boundary between the state authority and individual freedom, basing on the concept of social contract through which the civil state is established. More so is what (social contract) entrusts the authority to the governed. Individuals who are also obliged to obey the state because they gave it their rights and power for it to offer security. Therefore, individual freedom lies in heir obedience to the civil government.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barbara Goodwin (1997): Using Political Ideas, Fourth Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester England
David Muschamp(ed) (1989): Political Thinkers, Macmillan Education Australia PTY Ltd
G.C. Field (1956):Political Theory , Methuen and Company, Great Britain
J.S McClelland (1996): A History of Western Political Thought London
Patrick Dunleavy and Brendan Q’leary (1987): Theories of The State, Macmillan Education Ltd
S.I. Benn and R. S Peters (1956):Social Principles and The Democratic State, George Allen Unwin London
Tudor Jones (2002): Modern Political Thinkers and Ideas, Routledge, London
Tudor, 2002, Modern Political Thinkers and Ideas p.49
Rousseau, 1997,The Social Contract and Other Later Writing p50