Introduction

The prime issue of political thinks since time immemorial, specifically from the era of
Plato to Marx, has basically been the state, how it evolved, its organisation and the purpose.
Shaapera (2105) observed that some of the underlying concerns have been the origin of state,
whether a man has been in any form of political formation. These issues have never found
concrete solutions from theorists. However, there have been theories put forward to explain the
beginning of the state. These include social contract theory, the force theory, the divine right
theory, the evolutionary theory among other theories.
This paper examines the social contract theory as suggested by Jean Jacques Rousseau. It
is noteworthy to remember that from the beginning that even the theorists on social contract have
not come into agreement on how the started began considering their varying analysis of life in
the perspective of the state of nature. Nevertheless, they are in consensus that it was a social
contract founded on experience from the state of nature. Thomas Hobbes for instance, observed
the contract is an agreement between the people and the government while Locke viewed a
contract as encompassing all and not with the government. Rousseau agreed with Locke by
stating that the contract is meant to offer “collective security”. According to Hobbes, ‘life in the
state of nature’ may lead to war among individuals, resulting in perpetual fear and strife, of
which the end results are a miserable life. Locke also observed the state of nature is social and
moral in character, in which a person have rights and is obligated to observe duties. For Locke
that is not enough since peace is persistently distracted by corruption and savagery of
incorrigible men due to lack of defined laws, indifferent judge and lack of known in addition to
lack of executive power to implement the right decisions. Accordingly, Locke argued that these
are the reasons for the formation of the state, devoid of the evils, that ushered the social contract.
In this piece of writing, the works of Rosseau are predominantly examined. The paper
also examines the thoughts of other scholars on the topic with a view of providing solutions to
ambiguous areas in Rosseau’s thoughts.
The state of nature in relation to Rousseau’s political ideas
Rousseau’s perception on the state of nature, as per Rousseau (2018), is not pessimistic as
Hobbes suggested, or optimistic as advanced by Locke. Rather, they are unreflecting, solitary
(like in Hobbes’) easily contented and without lack of individual ideas. However, there are
instances where a person cannot live in isolation, and they occasionally converge for a common
purpose. Later family are formed which is followed by convergence of several families to
constitute a society. During the inception of a society, equality does not exist, but with the
evolution of private property, a group people decide to take advantage of others. Insecurity and
violence ensues and hence the idea of establishing a power to govern men and offer protection
from common enemies. Accordingly, men agreed on a social contract meant to offer “collective
security”. Hence, the social contract theorists, particularly Rousseau discovered the origin of
state as a social contract amongst people for promoting collective security.
Rousseau’s social contract
Muldoon (2016) and William (2014) observed that Rousseau’s social contract theory is
an idea that the state is a product of a contract entered by men that used to live in a state of nature
and that only one contract existed, the social pact that excluded the government. People
submitted to their community after entering into social contract and subsequently all their rights
are under the contract and such only rights permitted are what Rousseau termed as the General
Will (Law). The supreme power, which governs the community, is absolute but not the
government. Accordingly, every individual is a sovereign-being that constitute the entire
sovereign community. In other words, individuals still enjoy freedom from relying on any other
entity instead of themselves regarding the contract they entered with the society. The constituted
government after the social contract solely depends on the people. This means that people
selected to be in charge of implementing the objectives of the common law (the General Will)
for the collective security in the interest of the entire population. In the social contract of society,
everyone is treated as a rule of himself and not of government. Laskar (2013) also observed that
the argument of Rousseau is that people have no capacity to govern themselves and hence the
need to constitute a body that will implement the social contract, and that the body put in place is
not an entity to the social contract and the community has powers to ask the reasons for failure to
implement agreements in the social contract which exclude the government. In particular, the
major political ideas of Rousseau can be explained further by examining his analysis of
inequality, Freedom and independence of life, sovereignty, the civil society, institution of private
property the individual freedom and the General Will.
The concept of inequality according to Rousseau
Rousseu demonstrated inequality by showing how humans that were naturally in good
health and almost equal to one another, suddenly became intelligent, highly unequal and sickly
evil after they mixed in society. Shaapera (2015) argued that greatest fear is contemporary
society was that in reality that it was highly inadequate. The human being had the ability to be
perfect enabling to emerge from the state of nature, however in the course of time and through
civilization created imbalance between needs and means of satisfying them. Accordingly,
civilization multiplied the desire for needs. It also increased the inability to fulfill the needs that
had made man in the civilized society highly unequal and unhappy. Thus, civilization as per
Rousseau was corrupting and wrong which depicted made-made inequalities.
Sovereignty, Freedom and Independence of Life
Rousseau postulated that sovereignty rest with the people who form the society and the
universal adherence to the General Will is what promote the freedom of an individual from
relying on any other entity such as government. Remarkably, the individual is therefore free the
same way before the state of nature. Notably, state of nature as per Rousseau, unlike Hobbes,
guaranteed quality life meant for individuals. Basically human beings in the state of nature were
not limited by artificial problems since there was human equality for men started to reason and in
the process led to unevenness in the state of nature. Some group of people threatened the lives of
others and this necessitated the need for an organized society referred as the state. Consequently,
the existence of absolute sovereignty present in an organized society, an individual gains
independence and freedom of life (Putterman, 2010). As observed by Rousseau, the ‘popular
sovereignty in inalienable and indivisible because, individual cannot surrender their ultimate
right to self-government that can decide their destiny at will. Each person is obligated to will and
improve the general good.
Advocacy for social equality
According to Shapeera (2015) Rousseau advocated for approximate social equality
instead of total equality. Rousseau permitted two types of inequality. The first is the Natural
inequality that was between the weak and the strong, the young and the old, the tall and short, the
wise and stupid, etc. The second is the reward inequality that resulted from recognizing those
who have done exceptionally well to the society. Rousseau maintained that social inequalities
that exist in society are not part of the ones he permitted. Rajagopal (2016) stated that the social
inequality is due to artificial equality of opportunities. Rousseau rejected the differences in
ability for the reason that it creates social inequalities. Rather, he explained how individuals take
advantage of one another to reach the highest level. Accordingly, the rich and powerful became
wealthier due to their unscrupulous business practices they employed and not because they were
gifted or talented than the rest. They had always taken advantage of other people to attain their
privilege status. This form of social inequality was disapproved by Rousseau and promoted
social equality as a form of equality based on opportunities.
The concept of institution of private property
According to Rousseau, life in the state of nature was favorable compared to the civil
society for the reason that the institutionalization of property rights diminishes the self-
sufficiency that was there in the state of nature. Accordingly, resulted in misery to most in the
civil society and only benefited a few. This indicates that the reason for constituting a civil
society, the society contract for people to enter, was meant to adequately protect the property and
to benefit a few and not for the general security and preserve life. Rousseau therefore identified
how property could be used as a weapon for private dominion, the main cause of injustice and
moral corruption (Shapeera, 2015). Therefore, property had to be managed by the General Will
in the civil society.
The civil society
In regard to civil society, Rousseau discounted the enlightenment’s belief in the progress
of humanity through technology and science. Shapeera (2015) observed that Rousseau claimed
that civilization and technology did not amount to moral improvement for the reason that
continued decadence gauged in the form of human unhappiness is the reality existing in most
modern societies.
The concept of general will and individual liberty
Rousseau advanced the notion that social contract, the individual and society were
complemented. Accordingly, the just society under the power of General Will would turn the
individual into a human person immortalized who is also not under unnecessary dependence or
domination. In Rousseau’s perspective a person is who free but is chained in all directions.
Respectively, there is a necessity for an organized society to aim for the general instead of the
individual interests. The autonomy enjoyed by an individual in the state of nature would be
regarded a reality when there is the right kind of society controlled and managed the by “General
Will”. It is this General with that forms the basis for all laws that governs the human being.
Rousseau also pointed out that civil liberty meant from abuse from others. To put into
perspective, Okolie & Nweke (2015) observed that it is the freedom from following unplanned
will of another person. Accordingly, Rousseau concluded that if one had to be free it is advisable
to obey one’s will. Each person ought to be a law maker for freedom to be maximized
(Putterman, 2010). Rousseau then observed that the Free State would be participatory and
consensual Democracy. Consequently the “General Will” would be created in the assembly of
lawmakers. Rousseau said that the “Executive Will” could not be substituted with the “General
Will”, hence affirming the supremacy of the Legislature.
The role of legislature in political ideas
According to Rousseau government is an agent acting on behalf the General Will (Law)
that was self-governing agency in the body polity. And as such Legislature plays a big role for
the success of any republic (Shaapera, 2012). During the earliest republics, the legislature was
the one that created people meant to legislate the General Will. In that the legislature suggested
laws with the backing of the people and the function of the legislature would be to change human
nature and transform individuals and change the constitution with the intent of supporting it for
the benefit of the entire community.

If Rousseau’s social contract ended with the third book, Locke could rightly argue that the way
that was suggested by Rousseau -- that each person gives laws to himself -- would easily pave
for individuals to exploit the system and attempt to enact laws in their favor. Rousseau, on the
other hand, could argue that Locke’s way -- rule by majority -- would easily turn into a system
in which minority is largely suppressed by the majority, which is clearly at odds with the
Rousseau’s understanding of freedom. However, Rousseau then argues in book 4, chapter 2
that some people may not always be correct about the general will and therefore majority gets
to pass the law while minority (opposition) is compelled to obey this law. Even though this idea
of rule of majority is compatible with that of Locke, it all seems like a clear contradiction with
Rousseau’s earlier arguments about freedom and law making process. But he rejects a
“freedom-paradox” by arguing that by compelling the minority to obey the law, these citizens
who unknowingly failed to vote for the common good, are now forced to act in accordance
with their original intentions, which is obviously nothing but to will the general will (Rousseau,
227-228). Whether the argument of forcing citizens to obey the rule of majority is at odds with
freedom or not, Locke would appreciate Rousseau for meeting him on a common ground about
the rule of majority.
All this arguments derive from the fact that both Rousseau and Locke agree that the laws must
be for the benefit of everyone. The laws that are far from reflecting the general will, are simply
nothing but the means of exploitation. And this is always a great concern especially in
democracies. There is always a great chance that lawmakers may attempt to enact laws that
would favor their own interests, rather than that of common-wealth. Moreover, people may not
always be correct about the general will. So, even though Rousseau initially seems to vary from
Locke, he later meets him in the middle by accepting the rule of majority, and obedience of
minority.
Sacrificing natural liberty — Even though Rousseau warns his readers in the Second discourse
that people agree to form community not because they forget what freedom was like, but to
receive protection from the rulers, he later argues in the first Book I of Social Contract that man
actually “lost his natural liberty and unlimited right to everything” (Rousseau, 167). With the
social contract, the new state deprives him of many of the advantages that he enjoyed in the
state of nature. But because he equally gains great advantages with civilization including
transformation from “a limited animal to and intelligent being,” the emergence of civil state can
easily be justified (Rousseau, 167.) Locke’s justification is not so different. Because life is no
longer as simple as it was in the state of nature and our standards of living is way more higher
that it was in pre-history times, Locke argues, the emergence of a central authority is the (most
reasonable) price we pay for our new standard of living. His justification for the emergence of
“common-wealth” is simply derived from the idea of common good or benefit of the whole. It
is correct that the invention of money gave people luxury to accumulate as much as they want,
causing inequality, making people rich and poor. Along with its adverse outcomes, this process,
ridding people of their primitive constrains, dramatically improved people’s standard of living.
In this period of the state of nature, people began to engage in productive labour because they
could simply sell and buy things in the market now (a primitive capitalism). This new luxury
paved way for a significant division between law of nature and the notion of self-interest.
Faction arrives and Locke builds his argument: Man sacrifices his “natural liberty” by agreeing
with others to join into a community in order to keep his new standard of life, luxury,
comfortableness and security against any threat (Locke 52-53).
The issue of consent –Locke would appreciate Rousseau’s emphasis on the issue of consent as
both of them argue that uncivilized people become members of the community only by
expressing consent (Rousseau, 163). In fact, not only the initial contractors, but also their
children and following generations must give their consent to be part of this community, Locke
argues. He therefore would agree with the following statement by Rousseau: “Even if each
person can alienate [his liberty] himself, he cannot alienate his children. They are born men and
free. Their liberty belong to them. They alone have right to dispose of it” (Rousseau, 160).
This, of course, does not necessarily mean that every single person must literally take an oath to
join the community.
The sovereignty and its limits – Favoring an elected parliament, Locke would disagree with
Rousseau’s objective to a representative legislative authority. In Locke’s social contract, the
duty of writing laws is given to a representative legislature which does not sit in permanent
sessions and only come together to make the necessary laws that would look for the common
good. However, Rousseau proposes some sort of a direct democracy, in which every single
individual actively take part in writing the laws. In that sense, he sees the citizens as both
sovereign and the subject because they are writing and then obeying the laws. This difference
between the two mostly derives from the varied understandings of freedom and thus will. As
discussed in detail above, for Rousseau, people are only free when they are forced to obey the
laws that are written by themselves. Locke, on the other hand, would argue a supreme power in
form of a representative legislature would do the job. Despite this difference, Locke would
agree with Rousseau’s first two chapters of the 2nd book of the Social contract where
sovereignty is claimed to be inalienable and indivisible (Rousseau, 170). Rousseau argues
because sovereignty can neither be divided among different legislature bodies, nor be given
away (Rousseau, 170-171). Because, in Lock’s world, the sovereignty is also constrained in a
similar way that the power of lawmaking cannot be delegated to any other group, body or
person (Locke, 69).
Locke’s legislative is constrained at least three different ways. The law makers cannot make
arbitrary laws. The laws must be for the benefit of the common-wealth. Secondly, the
legislative cannot simply lay taxes upon citizens without their consent. And thirdly, the
legislative cannot rule with administrative decrees. Standing laws must be passed by the
majority (Locke, 52). In a similar vein, Rousseau argues that a government is legitimate as long
as it is guided by the general will, which is the law (Rousseau 181). Also, the sovereign is not
allowed to impose “on the subjects any fetters that are no use to the community” (Rousseau
174).
Resetting the contract / issue of obedience – In Book I, Rousseau makes a discussion about
when and why it is necessary to reset the contract. He argues that when the distinction between
“ruling a society” and “subduing a multitude” disappears, the common-wealth automatically
turns into pointless aggregation (Rousseau 163). Rise of a despot regime would obviously cease
the rule of general will as well as the liberty of individuals, and this indicates the end of
legitimacy of the existing contract. Locke’s position is not so different: When the rule of law
(rule of majority) ends, tyranny begins and it, then, could rightly be deposed by the people
(Locke, 103-104). If the nature of the legislature is altered, if this supreme power is given to
monopoly of a person or some group, then the fundamental rule of the social contract
(obedience to law) is no longer applies.