Drawing on the different theorists we have read (Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, Mills,

Marx & Engels; Weber) pick any three and discuss (this means to compare and
contrast) their understanding of sovereignty as well as what these theorists
understand by the role, composition and responsibilities of the state in relation to
its citizens. Please also locate their ideas in the historical context they are situated
in.
In the era of modern age, came the concept of formation of modern nation state, whereby people
had their own distinguished identity, the state had its own predefined boundaries, and was ruled
by a single higher sovereign authority. There was a legal formation of system and rules which
were backed by a capacity to use force. The single authority had sub divisions within it that
reported to a single head of state.
While the stateless societies often had informal mechanism for the government, and had no
predefined boundaries. The way of life of people in those societies is often defined by their
tradition and custom. Their disputes were solved by any powerful person within their society;
any chief or king between them. In pre modern world, if people were under any rule, it was
mostly the powerful people like emperors, and rulers who ruled the empires, but they didn’t have
any proper boundaries. The latter was often in flux and shifted according to the patterns of
rebellions and invasion.
There were many philosophers that argued over the formation of modern nation state, and
overcoming the state of nature. Some philosophers praised the idea, while others argued against
it. In this essay, I will explain and elaborate on the arguments of three well known philosophers,
who has great contributions to the political modernity: Thomas Hobbe, John Lock, and
Jacques Rousseau.
State of nature is defined as state where man is bounded by no authority, and has free will to live
according to him. The man is not answerable to anyone, and there is no law to regulate him. It is
considered to be a hypothetical situation, where people used to live before organized societies
existed. This assumption can somehow be connected to stateless societies. People sign a social
contract in which there is an agreement among the members of society to cooperate for social
benefits. The rules and rights among the people are decided by mutual understanding, and a
social contract is formed. While in its opposite, people abide by a single authority and surrender
the whole or part of their rights and freedom to the authority. In exchange the authority
guarantees everyone the protection of their lives and property.
The social contract theory was given its full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes in his
book ‘Leviathan’. Hobbes disregarded the state of nature, and believed that people would always
struggle between each other for limited resources present. The people are rational characters that
act primarily for their own self-interest, and in an open world mostly the stronger characters,
dominate the weaker ones. Hobbes believed that there should be equality among the people, and
people should obey a single absolute authority who have the complete sovereignty. The people
will get constraint liberty in exchange in which they would not coincide the other person’s
liberty. All humans are free to do whatever they want but their freedom should not affect the
other person’s freedom or will. This is where state steps in and asks people to rationally give up
some of their freedom in exchange for protection of their own freedom.
While Thomas Hobbe considered the state of nature to be miserable, and supported completely
the idea of Formation of state, John Locke had different view about the state of nature. Locke
believed state of nature to be the most beneficial for humans being. ‘It was a state of “peace,
goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation”. When Locke was working on this theory, there
was a fanciful notion at that time, that political authority derived directly from God. In this state
man had all the rights the nature could offered it to them. Locke justifies that in state of nature
the people were free to act and had complete liberty to conduct one’s life. The state of nature
although did not have any civil authority or government to punish people who violated the laws,
but was not a state without ‘morality’. Persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a
state, and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the law of nature, thus the
state of nature, is a ‘state of liberty’. However, Locke believed that are some instances where an
external interference is important; for example, the protection of people property. But if an
authority is present, it should not have complete control over the rights of people, and the
authority and the people should have equal rights.
Jean Jacques Rousseau also supported many of the arguments of John Locke and was not in the
favor for formation of modern nation state. Rousseau’s famous quote is ‘a man is born free, but
is chained everywhere. Rousseau had a more constructive approach towards defining the state of
nature. He believed that the life in the state of nature was happy and there was equality among
men. According to Rousseau, the original ‘freedom, happiness, equality and liberty’ which
existed in primitive societies prior to the social contract was lost in the modern civilization. The
state and the law is the general will of the people, and if the government and the laws do not
conform to the ‘general will’, they would be discarded. Rousseau argued that in state of nature,
man had two inmate impulses; self-preservation; love of himself, and pity; repugnance towards
seeing suffering of others. In course of evolution, man starts to become civilized by comparing
himself to others through what equals perfectibility. Rousseau favored the people sovereignty.
To protect the people rights and self-interest a general will should be formed, and the people are
only abiding to follow that, but his sovereignty is infallible, indivisible, unpresentable and
illimitable.
Those three philosophers had different approach towards defining state of nature. Hobbes and
Rousseau represented completely opposite sides about the locus of sovereignty. While Hobbes
placed the sovereign political state to be the most powerful and decisive, Rousseau placed the
community to be all powerful, and dominate the individual citizens. Locke although supports the
state of nature to be beneficial, however a dispute in property can always lead to a havoc. Thus
here he justifies the- sovereign authority coming in.
They all argue about different ways and methods to impose the rule and the law, but their
ultimate aim is to bring justice and equality to the society. They want men to be protected, and to
be given justice in the world, where they are able to live with complete liberty, and they don’t
have any harm from each other.
Lasker, Manzoor, “Social Contract Theory by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau”. LL.M Symbiosys
Law School, Pune.
Shea, Matthew, “Hobbes, Locke, and the social contract”.
Political Theory – John Locke, ‘The School of Life’,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZiWZJgJT7I