Definition: The idea of the social contract is one of the foundations of the American political system.

This is the belief that the state only exists to serve the will of the people, and they are the source of all political power enjoyed by the state. They can choose to give or withhold this power. The origin of the term social contract can be found in the writings of Plato. However, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes expanded on the idea when he wrote Leviathan in response to the English Civil War. In this book he wrote that in the earliest days there was no government. Instead, those who were the strongest could take control and use their power at any time over others. Hobbes' theory was that the people mutually agreed to create a state, only giving it enough power to provide protection of their well-being. However, in Hobbes' theory, once the power was given to the state, the people then relinquished any right to that power. In effect, that would be the price of the protection they sought.

Jean Jacques Rousseau Social Contract Theory

Jean Jacques Rousseau and John Locke each took the social contract theory one step further. Rousseau wrote The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right in which he explained that the government is based on the idea of popular sovereignty. Thus the will of the people as a whole gives power and direction to the state. John Locke also based his political writings on the idea of the social contract. He stressed the role of the individual. He also believed that revolution was not just a right but an obligation if the state abused their given power. Obviously these ideas had a huge impact on the Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

1. The State of Nature

o

"The Social Contract" holds that people were free and equal before becoming civilized. Civilization leads to economic and social inequalities by creating upper and lower classes.

Coexistence
o

Since civilized people cannot return to living in a State of Nature, they must learn to live together peacefully and equally.

Rights
o

In a civilized society, no individual has more rights than any other. Authority over an individual can only come by agreement or contract.

The General Will

o

Individual wills are subject to the general will of the people. The general will is established by creating an Assembly to which every adult citizen must belong. This body will be a direct democracy and not a representative one.

An Assembly of Equals
o

Since the Assembly is comprised of individuals with equal rights, the general will meets the needs of most individuals, while the individual serves the needs of the populace by obeying its decrees. If anyone refuses to join the Assembly, he will be denied the benefits of citizenship and protection.

Small States

Direct democracy can only work in small states so that individuals can attend the frequent Assembly meetings.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5367716_jean-rousseau-social-contract-theory.html

The State of Nature:

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78)

Rousseaus State of Nature is rather different from the ones explained by the predecessors.He agrees with Hobbes and Locke that in a state of nature mens main drive is towards self-preservation.According to Rousseau, however, Hobbes and Locke overestimated the likelihood of falling in a state of war.In Rousseaus state of nature a man would be like a savage, whose actions are primarily determined by immediate needs food, sexual satisfaction, sleep and fears only hunger and pain. The savage man is also motivated by self-preservation and pity. In fact, he thinks that human beings are naturally affected by others human beings sufferance, in other words they have an innate repugnance a fellow creature suffer So it is compassion which acts as a powerful mean to restrain people to harm others. Finally, he advocates that it is the capacity of self-improvement to have brought progress to mankind and misfortune with it.Rousseau believes that civilization and progress have somehow polluted the goodness which was reigning in the state of nature and there is not any chance to go back to that state. God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil However, Rousseaus point on morality is dramatically different form Lockes one. He states that in a state of nature there is no room for law, right and morality. Rousseau simply means that we tend to avoid harming others because of our natural aversion to pain and suffering. Therefore, if men are in a state of war they would feel terrible for all the harming caused to other fellows.

General will
"The idea of the general will is at the heart of Rousseau's philosophy. The general will is not the will of the majority. Rather, it is the will of the political organism that he sees as an entity with a life of its own."
. Thegeneral will, the idea that the interest of the collective must sometimes have precedence over individual will, is a complex idea in social and political thought; it has proven both fruitful and dangerous. Rousseau's ideas have been respected and used by both liberals and repressive Communist and totalitarian leaders

Popular Sovereignty
The modern meaning of sovereignty (but not popular sovereignty) was introduced by Jean Bodin in 1576. According to the New Columbia Encyclopedia, sovereignty is "the supreme authority in a political community". The origin of popular sovereignty, on the other hand, goes most directly back to what is called the social contract school of the mid 1600s to the mid 1700s. Popular sovereignty is the notion that no law or rule is legitimate unless it rests directly or indirectly on the consent of the individuals concerned. Rousseau (e.g. The Social Contract, 1762) claimed that laws enacted by the legislature could only address the common good of the society's members and they could only extend the same rights or obligations to all citizens. Rousseau, however, didn't elaborate on what would happen if these conditions were violated, but he did propose mechanisms to find out what the "general will" was and he did see the legislative powers as vested in the people itself. Thus there was a development in political theory from the very limited role played by the people in Hobbes' theories, to the more significant popular sovereignty of Rousseau.

A contemporary definition of popular sovereignty

According to the New Columbia Encyclopedia, sovereignty is "the supreme authority in a political community". It is that individual or group that has absolute power to make law. The term popular sovereignty is supposed to mean that this ultimate power belongs to the people, but what is the most common contemporary interpretation? Most Western democracies claim to base their government on popular sovereignty, but in reality the people has little ultimate authority short of revolution. Most decisions, even fundamental decisions, are left to the legislatures. It is usually the legislature that controls the constitution, the most basic instrument of government, and the extent of popular authority is usually at this bodys discretion. Even where popular consent is required, the legislature usually has the sole authority to propose amendments. In reality this means that sovereignty is most commonly placed in the legislature. It is this body, rather than the people, that has the ultimate power to make law.

On the other hand, in order for a government to be truly popular it would have to provide the people with at least as much authority as any other body, and in addition a right to overrule that body. This is how I define popular sovereignty and it is this definition that forms the basis for the proposed governmental system. A modern updated definition of popular sovereignty has to rest on the people's ability to:
y y

adopt its own basic law (constitution) propose and adopt amendments to the basic law (constitution)

If the people has these powers, it may institute any other changes it desires. If it doesn't have these powers, however, it is unclear how it can be legitimately said that the government rests on the supreme authority of the people.

Popular sovereignty and direct democracy

Direct democracy means that the people directly decides all issues, instead of

delegating decisions to representative bodies like national legislatures; while popular sovereignty means that the ultimate political authority is deposited in the people. It follows that popular sovereignty and direct democracy are closely related, but they are not exactly the same. Crudely simplified we may say that popular sovereignty is political theory at a more basic level, while direct or semi-direct democracy is its practical and pragmatic manifestation. Much of the discussion in the following chapters will therefore focus on (semi) direct democracy, its implementation and effects.
. Rousseaus social contract theories together form a single, consistent view of our moral and political

situation. We are endowed with freedom and equality by nature, but our nature has been corrupted by our contingent social history. We can overcome this corruption, however, by invoking our free will to reconstitute ourselves politically, along strongly democratic principles, which is good for us, both individually and collectively.

http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Popular%20sovereignty.htm