The Social Contract, Essay Example

In “The Social Contract”, Jean-Jacques Rousseau evaluates the relationship between people and their government to assess how these interactions dictate both the freedoms and restrictions that are imposed on the governed. As a direct consequence of the laws and rules that the governed are required to follow, Rousseau argues that people can be “forced to be free”. Even in democratic societies, this is the case because there is always a percentage of the populace that does not agree with the governmental structures that are in place. Thus, individuals that prefer dictatorships, communism, and similar ideologies are forced to be free, when in reality, they believe that alternative systems of government would be ideal for them because they would be willing to give up their personal rights to ensure that society would benefit.

To understand how it is plausible for people to be forced to be free, it is first necessary to determine how democratic governments form. Modern democracies are by no means reflective of true democracies, so it is beneficial to evaluate first how these true democracies formed and how they function. In ancient Rome, for example, individuals that were given voting rights were called Senators, and all landowning men were provided with this ability (Dahl 1991). These individuals were directly responsible for electing their officials, including two counsuls, who would be responsible for a majority of the important decisions in the government. Since these individuals were elected each year and could be punished for their actions, the rule of Rome was the direct will of the people. However, it is important to consider that this democratic system, as is true of most democratic systems, only the voice of the majority is heard. Since all individuals are permitted to vote, but the decision made is based on the policies and individuals that have the most support, there are some people who are not represented through this system. In this case, members of society that are not given the right to vote and those with minority opinions are not represented, and are thus required to live in a free society when doing so could contrast their personal beliefs.

The issue of representation is a primary concern is most modern and ancient forms of government. Even in ancient Rome, which represented the concept of a true democracy, there were many individuals who were prevented from voicing their opinion. Likewise, in modern democratic governments, such as in the United States, the voice of the minority and those who are unable to vote still go unheard. While some governments are more likely to respect the wishes of their minority groups more than others, this acceptance will never reach the point that the government will alter its fundamental governing system. For example, in the United States, many people belong to communist and socialist parties. While some politicians argue that these modes of government have policies that should be respected and integrated into our democratic society in some manner, they will never take action to undermine the democracy that has been put in place by the Constitution. Likewise, individuals acting to reform the government will never be successful because any acts of force they take to do so will be deemed illegal and action will be taken by the existing establishment to put an end to their actions.

When understanding the sentiment of individuals that are forced to be free, it is beneficial to consider the benefits that alternative government systems, such as communism and socialism can bring to the people. In democracies, there is a large sense of inequality through a class system that has developed due to a variety of social and economic factors. The individuals that are able to get ahead in life are likely those that were born to a certain race or socioeconomic class because they have the power to maintain their standing in the greater context of society. While democratic government occasionally implement programs to help people that are disadvantaged by this structure, it is apparent that these steps are not sufficient to promote the well-being of all members of this society. On the other hand, socialist and communist governments are designed to promote equality for all. Since the government is responsible for distributing wealth and resources, the disparities that are present in the democratic system are not problematic if the government is responsible and will truly disperse resources with fairness (Birch 1993). As such, socialist and communist governments promote equality. In socialism, everyone is given the resources they need to survive, so there is no extreme poverty. In communism, everyone is given equal amounts of resources so there is no classism. Thus, individuals that prefer these systems due to the benefits that they bring are being forced to be free. Furthermore, in being forced to be free, they are also being required to live a life of poverty and inequality due to the issues that are intrinsically present as a part of the democratic system of government.

In spite of the oppositions that people have to the ability to be free, it is important to consider that the ruled have an unspoken social contract with their government. The purpose of the government is to provide a means by which people become unified and are able to survive. In the modern sense, benevolent governments are typically democracies or republics and therefore value the freedom of its residents. By forming this social contract, the ruled thereby provide their government with the ability to take certain of their basic rights away from them to ensure the mutual survival of the country’s residents (Diamond & Plattner 1996). If we were to live in a place in which everyone had different ideologies, but also the freedom or ability to act on them, our safety would be compromised. A modern example of how conflicting ideologies with regards to rule does not work is the civil war in Syria. There are many different groups involved in fighting with many different ideas about how the country should be run. Others support freedom and others do not. However, because the residents of Syria were unwilling or unable to form a social contract with their government by which they give up rights in exchange for an operational government, they must constantly worry about how they will defend themselves in the wake of rising terror. Government is only strong if people are willing to make compromises so that the rule of their government is effective.

The most important aspect of a social contract that is effective is that the power of people to stand up against the state is taken away. No matter how people may disagree with decisions made by the government, by acknowledging that it is the government not the person that has ultimate power, it is reasonable for the government to function in a manner that protects the person. For example, there are many individuals that believe that it is necessary to protest against the government by killing cops to ensure that the police system is reformed in the United States. This is closely tied to the concept of the Black Lives Matter movement and has resulted because people feel that it is beneficial to harm the police in the same manner that the police have attacked innocent civilians. However, any individual that attempts to harm a cop or successfully harms a cop will be subject to persecution by law. While many people are in opposition to this concept because they believe that the government is taking advantage, it is also important to consider the value of the government upholding its law. These same laws help keep murders off the streets, protect children, and prevent robberies. Thus, even though the criminal justice system is not always effective, it is in the sense that it continues to support the power of the government over the individual. If civilians were able to openly harm cops for their actions, then chaos would result. Thus, a strong government is one that forces people to be free in a manner that promotes the stability of the system itself. By removing certain freedoms from people, it is easier for the government to protect them and to make their country a safer place for most.

It is important to consider that being forced to be free also implies that no one is set above anyone else in democratic systems. Thus, no individual loses their personal freedom by entering a social contract with the government. Thus, it is important to distinguish the freedom that is imposed by the government compared to the freedom that is imposed on the individual with respect to other individuals living in society. Ultimately, the individual still has the power to interact with other people in the manner that they desire and whether this lends to freedom or a lack thereof is largely dependent on them. However, people are forced to be free within the greater context of their interactions with the government. In the United States, these limitations are placed on the individual by their local, state, and federal governments. Thus, their actions are regulated by these bodies in terms of the legality of their decisions and tendencies. However, when interacting within the scope of these policies with other individuals, freedom is not required or restricted.

Overall, law is in place because it helps the individual remain loyal to his or her government. In doing so, people are forced to be free at the same time that certain restrictions are issued to them. It is imperative, however, that such structures remain in place to ensure the protection of the people. While we have little choice pertaining to our involvement in a government because most people are often born into the country that they will remain, it is valuable for laws and regulations to be upheld to not only protect ourselves, but to ensure the safety of those around us as well. A majority of people living in Western nations today live in societies that enact either republics or democracies because these forms of government confer the least amount of restriction to the people (Lijphart 1999). However, no matter where we live, rules and laws will be imposed upon us that work to restrict what we are able to do and what we cannot. This fact is frustrating for some, but whether our rights are restricted or whether we are being forced to be free, the social contract between the people and the government must be upheld. This preserves the structure that society has established to provide for the common good, and it is our role as citizens to play a part in this essential interaction.

In “The Social Contract”, when Jean-Jacques Rousseau argues that some people are “forced to be free”, he is demonstrating a necessary component of the agreement between the individual and the government. Even in free nations, people are forced to be free on the basis of the laws that dictate how society operates. However, by being forced to be free, people are more able to enjoy other freedoms that are associated with this notion. It is our responsibility as members of a free nation to understand this and take action to ensure that our social system remains in place. Government is only effective when it has power over the people, so it is beneficial to approach our voting and opinions regarding our politicians with this understanding. Doing so will allow us to make more informed decisions that support our government, and as a result, we will be able to enjoy a greater sense of freedom in return.

Bibliography

Birch, AH 1993, The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy, Routledge.

Dahl, RA 1991, Democracy and its Critics, Yale University Press.

Diamond, L & Plattner, M 1996, The Global Resurgence of Democracy, Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lijphart, A. 1999, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six   Countries, Yale University Press.