Transformation of society: Democracy, Liberty and Freedom (Final Part)

Reviewing famous book ‘The Social Contract’ by J.J Rousseau Rousseau, J.-J., & In Frankel, C. (1947). The social contract. New York: Hafner Pub. Co.

Chapter V: It is always necessary to go back to the first convention

There has always been a great difference between subduing a multitude and ruling a society. When an isolated men, one after another is subjected to a single person (State) that shows nothing except the sign of master-slave relationship. It is because; they have neither a public property nor a body politic. Therefore, the interest of the single person is separated from the rest and is nothing but shows a private interest at all. A nation says Grotius can give itself to a king then according to him, a nation is a nation before he gives it to a king. It is civil pact between nations not with king that is the real foundation of society. If there is no another pact then it is the obligation of the minority to submit to the decision of majority. If we examine the law of plurality it has always been established through civil conventions.

Chapter VI: The Social Pact

The human race will perish, if it does not change its modes of existence that is what happened in the state of nature, when people for the purpose of preservation changed their modes of existence. Since, men cannot create a new force; hence they need to from an agreement with those who already exists for the sake of self-preservation. It was the freedom and strength that was the chief instrument of self preservation. Without limiting your freedom and strength, you cannot go far a pact with adversary. Perhaps, this was the fundamental problem of which the social contract furnishes the solution. It is the violation of the social pact, that each men regains his original rights and recovers his natural freedom while losing conventional freedom for which, he renounced it. Thus, the social pact of the community leads to an alienation of men in all aspects from the interest to freedom. Likewise, this association has become nothing but a tyranny for alienating the individual. In short, through social contract, each is giving to all, gives himself to nobody—we lose our direct power, which is more powerful for the preservation of self.

If we set aside the former reservations; then we can reduce to social contract in the following terms: “Each of us puts in common his person and his whole power under the supreme direction of will; and in turn we receive every member as an indivisible part of the whole”. In this regard, every person becomes subjected to the laws of the state—which has turned tyrannical and cruel in nature with the time being.

Chapter VII: The Sovereign

Through social contract, two aspects have emerged; individuals have become the subject of double relations. Firstly, as a member of the sovereign towards an individual and second as a member of state towards sovereign, which engages individuals in double relations?

Thus, the subject of the state are bound to sovereign based on the former relations—there is also  aspect of contracting an individual with himself but there is not and nor can be the fundamental law that binds the body of people. Likewise, the body politics and the sovereign derive its existence from the social contract. On the contrary, the social contract had developed mutual assistance for different members, which leads to self-abrogation. Sometimes, private interests supersede the general interest that pushes an individual to avoid the duties and obligations drawn by the social contract. The progress of such trends could bring chaos to the position of sovereign and the body politic. Perhaps, this can be marked as the revolt against the widespread alienation under the social contract based political body. Likewise, if an individual wants himself from the bondage of the superstructure manufactured by the social contract then he must revolt against the general will in order to free himself from the cruelty and subjugation of the established system.[1]

Chapter VIII: The Civil State

You cannot justify social contract without giving moral quality to your actions in the state of affairs. Basically, it was only voice of duty that succeeds physical impulse just like as the law succeeds appetite, that man, who till then had regarded only himself, that he is obliged to actions of other principles. This is how, he pledges himself to the civil state and its established principles. Thus, through moral freedom of the civil state, men renders himself as the master of himself; avoiding all the appetites for excessive wealth, gamble and slavery.

Chapter IX: Real Property

When men enter into social contract along with his power, he gives all the property to the sovereign. Then, the state serves as the basis of all rights and grants the first occupancy (though the rights of first occupancy)—which state derives from individuals. In this regard, the right of first occupancy, although more real than that of the strongest becomes a true right only after it becomes to property. Every man has by nature right to all that is necessary for his survival; hence it is the embodiment of the positive act, which makes him proprietor of certain property by excluding him from the residue. In this way, in order to legalize the right of first occupancy over any domain whatsoever, the following conditions are necessary:

1. The land must not be inhabited by anyone.
2. The man must occupy only the area required for his subsistence.
3. He must take possession of it, not only by empty ceremony, but by labor and cultivation—because it is the nature, which gives them the right of common in the context of possession and ownership.

In the latter context, if we look at the waves of colonization, the imperial power didn’t fulfill the above conditions—colonization was accompanied by ruthlessness and exploitation. The colonial masters forcedly led to the dispossession of the natives from land and property by imposing a harsh and hostile ruler over the indigenous inhabitants. For instance, Vasco Núñez de Balboa, who was a Spanish Commander, did in the Pacific Ocean and South America in name of crown of Castile, Queen Isabella.

Similarly, if we compare the ancient and modern monarchs: the ancient monarchs were calling themselves as the kings of Romans, Persians, Macedonians and Scythians while the modern kings proudly call themselves as the king of Spain, Germany, and France(Holding vast land).

---

[1] The word Superstructure resembles the surface structure of certain social order which includes culture, religion, ethics, morality and traditions. Therefore, in the context of superstructure, the philosophical meaning of equality, liberty and fraternity is much different.