Social Contract in Jean Jacques Rousseau – Implications for Nigerian Democracy
Chapter One
PURPOSE OF STUDY
The researcher was spurred by the words of the Nobel Laureate, Wole Soyinka; when he said that: ‘the man dies in all who keeps silent in the face of tyranny.’13 Thus, this work seeks to diagnose the political arthritis and democratic rheumatism that have bedevilled Nigeria since independence, and attempt a treatment with the deductions or implications drawn from the Social Contract of Jean Jacques Rousseau.
CHAPTER TWO
ROUSSEAU ON SOCIAL CONTRACT
The notion of social contract in Jean Jacques Rousseau is a reactionary principle. It was developed as an antidote to the evils of inequality generated by the formation of civil state from the primitive state, the state of nature. Evil found its way into the organised society through the liberty granted for the private ownership of property. For as J. Omoregbe notes, “the first man who enclosed a piece of land as his private property was the real founder of civil society with its concomitant evils.”1 This scenario elicited quarrels and man was compelled to give up his natural freedom. Rousseau seems to be at cross roads. Thus, he asks; “what, then is to be done? Must societies be totally abolished? Must ‘Meum’ and ‘tuum’ be annihilated, and must we return again to the forests to live among bears?”
Rousseau carefully avoids any of these options because the society is a sacred right, which is the basis of all other rights. This is akin to the assertion of Aristotle in the opening page of his metaphysics that man is a ‘social animal.’ Therefore, Rousseau is now obliged to ensure that the society is justified and made legitimate. To do this, Rousseau adopts the Social Contract Theory, which has been treated differently in the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. The aim of Rousseau is to justify the transition from man’s primitive state to that of organised society.
MAN IN THE STATE OF NATURE
The proponents of the Social Contract Theory (Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau) agree that men once lived individually in a (an utopic) pristine state (the state of nature), before they agreed to live together in a society with an organised body of laws. In this state, man was only subject to the laws of nature. But there was no human authority to formulate these laws precisely or to enforce them. Therefore, these theorists said that a time came when men parted with their natural liberty in the state of nature and agreed to obey the laws prescribed by the Government.
However, before they embarked on the agreement to set up a government, their existential conditions and feelings were harsh and unbearable. Each of these social contract theorists explained how man felt in the state of nature. Thomas Hobbes developing his thought in the Leviathan admits that men in the state of nature, lived in the state of war, a perpetual struggle of all against all, men living without justice and law lived in state of competition, diffidence and love of glory, man is only concerned with his self interest and self preservation. Hence, Hobbes concludes that in this state, “the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” John Locke, in a clear departure from Hobbes’ postulations, says that in the state of nature men were free and equal; and each lived according to his wish. However, Locke adds that this freedom was not licence. There was a natural law or the law of reason, which commanded that no one should impair the life, the health, the freedom or the possessions of another. It is, therefore, very significant that the law of nature, as thought by Locke, stressed the freedom and preservation of all men, unlike that of Hobbes, which emphasised self-preservation. But because there was no common superior to enforce the law of nature, this Lockean state of nature became fearful and dangerous. However, it is not to be likened to the anarchy in Hobbesian state of nature.
CHAPTER THREE
NIGERIAN DEMOCRACY IN PRACTICE.
REVIEW OF NIGERIAN DEMOCRATIC TRIALS.
The history of the entity now called “Nigeria” began in 1885, when the most powerful European countries met in Berlin, Germany and agreed to divide the continent of Africa among themselves. Nigeria was part of the British portion. The country that is today known as Nigeria emerged after the amalgamation of the Northern and southern protectorates in 1914, by Sir Fredrick Lord Lugard. After several years of colonial domination, some groups of nationalists quickened the struggle for independence. The independence eventually came on 1st October 1960. In turn, Nigeria was raised to the status of republic in 1963. Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe was appointed President General, while Alhaji Tafawa Balewa became the Prime Minister. The administrative powers rested on the prime Minister, since Nigeria practised parliamentary system of Government.
Nevertheless, due to mismanagement on the part of the Prime Minister, Tafawa Balewa, soldiers took over power via a military coup in 1966. From this time, the political history of Nigeria became hot and turbulent. It has witnessed eight military regimes and three republics of civilian administration. Although some identify the republics to be four, adding the annulled June 12, 1993 elections, won by Chief Moshood Abiola, we settle with the three obviously known republics in this work.
Chapter Four
The Social Contract and Nigerian Democracy
Before we focus on the analysis of the expositions we have made of the social contract and Nigerian democracy, it is pertinent to summarise the salient points. This will help us to situate the points espoused in the social contract that is contributory to the development of democracy world over and bring it into the Nigerian democratic experience. The social contract of Rousseau is one of the foundations for the emergence of the democratic state and the basis for popular sovereignty in government. Thus, Rousseau affirms the definition of democracy as a form of government by the people in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole. If it becomes inconvenient for the people to exercise this function directly, it is delegated to officers elected by them.
Chapter Five
Critical Evaluation and Conclusion
Thus far, we have succeeded in exposing the erudition of the great enlightenment and romantic thinker-Jean Jacques Rousseau in his Social Contract and some implications it bears for Nigerian democracy. Obviously, Rousseau set out in the social contract to rediscover ways of reforming the society, which has been battered and turned evil through the ownership of property. By this means he confronted the arbitrary and tyrannical governments of his time. It is very important to note that the social contract theory was influenced by the modern age of reason and enlightenment. However, the Social Contract theory of Rousseau was particularly spurred by the dictatorial monarchy in France of his time. Therefore, Rousseau required a technical means of establishing a political framework or structure that would contend the evils of governments of his age. He had to be technical because both the French monarchy and Genevese aristocracy of the enlightenment era never loved outspoken criticisms. To play it safe, one had to generalise than particularise. This accounted for some abstractness obviously seen in Rousseau’s ideas, which never failed to attract criticisms from most thinkers. However, Rousseau’s thought influenced Kant’s moral philosophy and Hegel’s philosophy of right. In fact, he is the great forerunner of Romanticism, German and English Idealism.
Rousseau’s social contract stands out among those of his predecessors (Hobbes and Locke), in that he was able to fuse the premises and the temper of Hobbes with the conclusions of Locke. He seems to have espoused better terms of the contractual theory. It would be recalled that the trio holds that the state is a product of an agreement and contract entered into by men who formerly lived independently in a state of nature. But they differed on who were the parties to the contract and the terms of the compact. Rousseau on his own part emphasised complete surrender of rights after Hobbes, nevertheless not to the government as Hobbes would admit, but to the sovereign people (community) in line with Lockean theory. With this, the sovereign becomes absolute not the government. Rousseau however, disagreed with the partial handover of rights that Locke holds. For him, there is a total surrender of rights on the part of the natural man to the sovereign to which he is a member.
Among other things, Rousseau’s social contract is very important to political philosophy on the parlance that wherever there is a form of government apart from tyrannical regimes, the footing of the state cannot but be established on consent (tacit or expressed, past or present) of its members. Thus, he reveals an important aspect of political legitimacy and the necessity to respect the consent of the governed. It behoves governments, that of Nigeria inclusive, to work diligently to ensure that their constitution reflects this. If this is assured in governments, the individual will gain a lot of freedom and participate actively in government and thus realise himself the more.
Much as Rousseau’s political thought is admirable on a number of counts, its shortcomings cannot be overlooked. Indeed his social contract theory is laden with some obvious imperfections. In the first place, though we laud the use Rousseau made of the general will (common interest) as against the will of all (sum of particular wills), the unrestricted power he gave the general will can result to absolutism. And there is no guarantee that this disinterested will of the sovereign (general will), objectively works for the common good and will always turnout to be good. Similarly, Rousseau’s argument that the general will allows for individual diversity is faulty, in that the mode of the general will makes it to encourage the well-being of the whole (the sovereign body) and it can conflict with the particular interests of the individual. Equally, if the notion of the general will stands to carter for the welfare of the whole and not the will of the individual, how can it protect the individual freedom which is the initial problem Rousseau’s social contract seeks to resolve? Rousseau has not solved the problem.
Furthermore, the way Rousseau presupposed political consciousness in a people who were merely living in the pristine stage, the state of nature, as could only be possible in individuals who are already within the state of society is illogical. These men must have had knowledge of one political society, and if so they did not live in any pristine state. Or the whole idea of Rousseau turns out to be a mere metaphysical abstraction that cannot be located anywhere in the world. The social contract theory is far from any empirical investigation, and one cannot locate it anywhere in history. It is a mere product of imagination influenced by the eighteenth century enlightenment, brought about by modern philosophy, which was chaired by Descartes. The contract theory cannot be accepted as a necessary means through which any state of the world came to be. Hence, from the historical point of view the social contract theory as the origin of political authority is practically untenable. And even if we accept any historical foundation of this contract, it cannot necessarily bind the descendants of those who originally entered into the contract.
On the other hand, the equality that was attributed to man in the primitive state and thus transferred to the civil state is incompatible with popular trend. How can one accept Rousseau’s argument when common reasoning reveals to us that inequality rather than equality is natural, hence we say ‘all fingers are not equal’. Appadorai quoting the German Jurist, Von Haller (1768-1854) supports this submission: “it is possible to argue that inequality, rather than equality is natural.”1 And if equality should hold sway in the contracted state of society, the prince which Rousseau placed in-charge of the state can make the whole idea self-defeatist. The prince cannot but be above the common people, at least in status.
Conclusion
Despite the criticisms the social contract of Rousseau has incurred so far, it is hard to dispute the serious impact it makes on political thought and philosophy. No doubt it made distinctive contributions to foundation of democracy as a form of government. And the nature of the social contract theory of Rousseau brings out the idea that civil society rests not on the consent of the ruler but on the ruled. At least if we adopt this point to Nigerian democracy, a change from the present rule of minority to that of majority (the main tenet of viable democracy) is not far from us. We can accomplish this via the modern idea of public opinion and referendum and thus, checkmate this retinue of opportunists called leaders, who govern only for selfish interest instead of common interest. In all, Rousseau’s social contract reminds all governments of those human purposes, which the state can serve, and which alone can justify its existence.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ACHEBE, C., The Trouble with Nigeria, Enugu Forth Dimension Publication, 1985.
- ADLER, J.M. (ed.,), Great Books of the Western World, USA: Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., 1990.
- APPADORAI, A., The Substance of Politics, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1968
- ANYABOLU, O.I., Nigeria, Past to the Present, Enugu: Classic Publishing Company Ltd, 2000.
- BERKI, R.N., The History of Political Thought, New Jersey: Roman and Littlefield, 1977.
- COLE, G.D.H., The Social Contract and Discourses, New York: E. P. Dutton & Company Inc. 1950.
- COPLESTON, F., A History of philosophy, Vol. 6 Great Britain: Burns and Oates Publishers, 1960.
- EZEANI, E. O. (ed.), African Journal of Political & Administrative studies, Vol.1 May, 2004 Enugu: Zik – Chuks Nig. Press, 2004
- NWOKO, M.I., Basic World Political Theories, Ibadan: Claverianum Publishers, 1988.
- ODEY, J.O, Democracy our Lofty Dreams and Crazy Ambitions, Enugu: Snaap Press Limited, 2002.
