It is puzzling to comprehend how societies lived across generations without rules to govern interaction and engagement. Governance and the need for institutions, therefore, becomes a crucial element of human civilization. It is the formation and observation of the effective functioning of these institutions that have, in many instances, dictated how our societies have advanced. The existence of social institutions, however, has all but limited rights of individuals while granting much power to institutions. According to Larabee (1962), social institutions remain at a position of high responsibility as they oversee individuals’ adherence to allowable limits of freedom. The discussion highlights the tension between social governing institutions and individuals as a means of maintaining a balanced society for all to enjoy their liberties.
Different phases of human history have all but had one objective, to expand and explore the boundaries of human freedom. The conquest wars of the Roman Empire, the Alexandrian Wars, Napoleonic Wars, the World Wars, and Civil rights movements all remain geared towards the realization of individual rights, a quest to achieving the social balance between personal and state rights. Attaining such freedoms has all come at a cost, with either side having to cede grounds to achieve social stability. Inferring to Social Contract Theory, the need and role of social institutions in establishing a balanced society remain entrenched on the need for eliminating the “Darwinian state of nature” in a social setting (Larabee, 1962). Social Contract Theory hence introduces the need for checks and balances where under the watch of the government, people are free to enjoy their liberties but under limitation as agreed upon in the constitution or any other socially agreeable framework.
Social Contract theorists include Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, whose contributions have all annexed the existence of a society from a moral perspective. Hobbes, in his contribution, explains the community in both the absence and presence of a social agreement. According to McCartney and Parent (2018), Hobbes acknowledges that while nature allows freedom and social structure exist freely, without a clear understanding between individuals, the exercise of rights would breed chaos (Etieyibo, 2018). It is in Hobbes’ view that the unwritten yet inherited moral conduct guarantees society a better chance of stability that the Darwinian state of nature. John Locke’s argument on Social Contract advances Hobbes’s discussions. Locke agrees to the natural state of freedoms but cautions against a lack in protectionist institutions. In various discourses, Locke emphasizes on the need for punishment and its enforcement within the precincts of the social contract (Win, 2019). As such, Locke perceives the need for government and other institutions of government to oversee the social contract.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s argument emphasized on the need for social equality once laws set in principle and agreeable among members of the society. Rousseau’s core argument agrees to the policy of nature in freedom but advises on the need for limitation to guarantee equality before the laws (Gaus, 2018). In principle, Rousseau believes that social order can only be achieved through balance to offset the differences in nature while limiting the power of the social institutions upon individuals. In assessing social contract theory, it remains evident that freedoms remain guaranteed at a cost. As a society, members have to forego the ultimate fulfillment of their sovereignty to allow stability. Developing countries that are always young in a democracy have still reported cases of abuse of power. Feldmann and Mazepus (2018) observe that leaders of autocratic democracies have continued to find a way of imposing their will on the people leading to mistrust and instability. A clear example is the case of the Hong Kong riots, where the citizens opposed proposed security regulations that they believe will jeopardize their freedoms.
In conclusion, while freedom appears to remain beneficial in the long run, it has allows the state and institutions within the social contract more powers over the people. Governments formed by the people have remained entrusted with so much power that custodians of such social offices often end abuse.