Social Contract Reimagined
The Social Contract, published by Rousseau in 1762 provides foundational philosophy and a construct for civil society. Rousseau believed that in order for society to function properly, every person should give up some freedoms for the good of the entire society. In return for every individual giving up some rights, they will have the collective power to determine the laws of the land and influence how their state is run. A social contract provides legitimacy for a democratic government as in theory, every citizen gives up the same rights and the government runs the country on their behalf. However, in reality, this is rarely true. In this article, I will outline Mills’ critique of the social contract and then analyze if it can indeed be used to provide legitimacy in unequal societies, and finally discuss possible approaches to solutions to adapt the social contract to fit today’s reality.
The “Racial Contract” by Charles W Mills expounds that historically, the social contract has only been an agreement of the status quo by the whites who then enforced it on the rest of the population. Mills explains that when the US constitution was signed and it was to become a free country, many of the founding leaders still owned slaves. He believes that the social contract was really a racial contract which was an agreement to acknowledge whites as the superior race. Mills argues further that the racial contract is not just an example of how social contracts have been a contract of the few, but rather that they expose an inherent reality of social contracts — that they are never an agreement of everyone.
If a social contract isn’t signed by the entire population, then can it really give legitimacy to a government? In The Social Contract, Rousseau says that when we give up rights in exchange, we shouldn’t become slaves, and instead, we should have the power to make laws and play a role in the functioning of our society through a democratic government. In the current day, the return that citizens get for agreeing to give up some of their rights is the right to vote. The belief is that through the right to vote people will be able to influence the functioning of the state and the creation of laws by choosing their representatives. The irony of this is the majority of the representatives are from the privileged classes and represent a few and while the vast many give up their rights, their interests are not represented. This was starkly highlighted in India during the Covid-19 induced lockdown in mid-2020 to curtail the spread of the virus — the government ordered a total lockdown abruptly without considering the plight of the large unorganized workforce, many of whom were migrant workers and hourly-wage earners. They lost their source of income overnight, and the ability to food on the table and have a roof over their heads. Some walked thousands of miles to their native towns in the blistering summer heat, and many never reached their destination. Their plight clearly showed that the representatives they chose didn’t truly represent their interests and their voices were never heard. The stark reality that emerges is that they aren’t truly part of the social contract that they are subject to.
We need to rethink the social contract for it to effectively represent the reality of the world we live in. There are a few possible approaches to finding solutions. One idea, which addresses how the sovereign exercise its power to ensure common good, is to have “adapted” applications of laws among different groups of people. In the lockdown example, there could have been different levels of lockdown based on income levels, source of livelihood, and other considerations. While this might have less impact in terms of curtailing the spread of the virus, it provides for a more acceptable solution since the needs of marginalized sections are included in defining “the common good”. Decentralized decision-making by the Government could help in this regard — where local governments have the responsibility to make decisions and enforce them within their constituencies, thereby allowing for a truer representation of the local population. Another possible approach is to give everyone direct control over key decisions of the government. This was advocated by Thomas Jefferson where he believed that people should have the power to vote directly on issues of national importance through referendums. For example, a vote could have been conducted on the lockdown in India. However, this would be a logistical nightmare and the use of technology would create even more inequalities. A more central concern is whether people have the knowledge and information to vote on such important and complex issues. For example, during the Brexit referendum, many people weren’t really sure what exiting the EU meant for the economy, the labor markets, trade, etc. Education is central to democracy to prepare citizens to be actively involved in the government and “education for all” has to be pursued first before a government with the direct involvement of the people can be explored.
The present-day reality raises a lot of questions on the practical application of the social contract for providing legitimacy for a government. Should we continue with the current system or does the social contract need to be re-written as Mills suggests?
