What is Political Theory?

• Body of knowledge related to the phenomena of the state.

• David Held defines it as “a network of concepts and generalisations about

political life involving ideas, assumptions and statements about the nature,
purpose and key features of government, state and society and about the
political capabilities of human beings.

• For Hacker it is, “a combination of disinterested search for principles of good

state and good society on the one hand and a disinterested search for
knowledge of political and social reality on the other.

• Coker C. W ‘s conception is that, “when political government and its forms

and activities are studied not simply as facts to be described and compared
or judged in reference to their immediate and temporary effects but as facts
to be studied in relation to the constant needs, desires and opinions of men,
then we have political theory.”
• Gould and Kolb, argue that “political theory is
a sub field of political science which include: i)
political philosophy-a moral theory of politics
and a historical study of political ideas; ii) a
scientific criterion iii) a linguistic analysis of
political ideas; iv) the discovery and systematic
development of generalisations about political
behaviour.
• Thus according to Manithaneyam, Political
theory is concerned with studying the
phenomena of the state both in the
philosophical as well as empirical terms. This
means it not only involves explanation,
description and prescription regarding the
state and political institutions but also
evaluation of their moral purpose
• According to Weinstein, political theory can be viewed as
an activity which involves posing questions, developing
responses to those questions and creating imaginative
perspectives on the public life of human beings.
• As a result, political theorists have been probing into
questions like, nature and purpose of the state, Why one
should prefer a kind of state than the other, what the
political organisation aims at; by what criteria a its ends,
its methods and its achievements should be judged; what
is the relationship between state and the individual.
 Greek philosophy

• The main premise of Greek philosophers was that political

practice should have a philosophical basis. They were mainly
concerned with describing and defending desirable political
order, prescribing the right and good pattern of political
order.
• The Sophists believed that might makes right; that men are
non-social; that the state rested upon artificial and
individualistic basis; and also that political authority is
essentially selfish in its aims. They also argued that law forces
men to act contrary to the dictates of reason.
• Socrates believed that man was social by nature; the state
was a necessary and desirable result of human needs.
 Plato 427-347.

• Born in an aristocratic (noble or upper class).

• Lived through the Peloponnesian war, where there
were bitter struggles for power among different
classes in society and had resulted in ruin for all
concerned.
• He argues that political struggles were caused by
man’s unwillingness to look beyond their
immediate self-interests. He believed that there
was a better way of organising and managing
society.
• Philosophy cannot be separated. This compelled Plato to
think philosophically about politics and he founded a
university called the Academy to teach philosophy in
order to reform Greek politics.
• Plato’s greatest contribution to political philosophy was
his work ‘the Republic’ which aimed at making
individuals live a life of justice since it examines what
justice is.
• Plato argued that society is natural to men since men
are naturally not self-sufficient; they need each other to
survive thereby forming society.
• According to Ebenstein 2002, Plato proposed an ideal type of
society putting forward an ideal threefold class system
composed of societal governors (the Guardians), Soldiers
(auxiliaries), and the masses, based on the Spartan system of
government, ideally led by a philosopher king.
• To Plato harmony is achieved by maintaining an appropriate
division of labour and virtue among the 3 main groups in
society; the artisans (virtue of temperance), the warriors
(virtue of courage) and the rulers/guardians (virtue of
wisdom).
• For Plato, a harmonious and just society is one that is ruled by
philosophers.
 WHY PHILOSOPHER KINGS?

• They posses wisdom and knowledge on how

to order and organise society.
• Plato argues in The Republic, that “the right
kind of government and politics can be the
legitimate object of rigorous, rational analysis,
rather than the inevitable product of muddling
through fear and faith, indolence (laziness)
and improvisation (Ebenstein, 2002).
 Plato.
• Philosopher kings are able to discover the mystery of
Good Life. Thus the Platonic Philosopher, basis his rule
of people not on superior and rational knowledge
alone, but on a personal character and unique inner-
most experience that is mystical and incommunicable in
rational terms.
• In this regard Plato argues, “to know is to, “contemplate
the realities themselves as they are forever in the same
unchanging state and because the ruler knows as a
result of his vision of the good, he has the right to rule
the people”.
• Political and social issues can be clarified by argument rather
than by force and dogma.
• Plato argues that, the road to better government and public
service is through an appropriately conceived system of
education.
• As such Plato advocates a highly trained administrative and
political class, dedicated to public service without
consideration of personal happiness or financial gain.
• Plato conceived government as the highest moral and
practical task to which men of knowledge and virtue ought to
devote themselves. However, this argument is disputed by
democrats.
• For Plato authority to rule is based on wisdom,
is absolute and unconditional.
• The rulers have the moral right to constrain
the ruled if they show sign of defection from
established order.
• Plato argued that, ‘unless political power and
philosophy meet together there can be no rest
from troubles neither for states nor for all
mankind’
• However Plato noted that these philosopher kings are
not immune to selfishness therefore he proposed
some ways of resolving moral erosion among the
philosopher kings. Plato proposed an elaborate
system of breeding; communal way of life where
rulers do not own any personal property and an
educational system that maintains philosopher-rulers.
• Plato warned that power without knowledge and
wisdom corrupts the personality of men to the point
of insanity.
 Social Justice
• Justice is the highest virtue for Plato that is the virtue of
maintaining a proper relationship between wisdom,
courage and temperance.
• According to Plato social justice can be discovered and
defined through unlimited reasoning.
• However, the modern view is that social justice is not
pre-existing reality of logically or intuitively discovered
speculation or revelation, but that temporary
approximates of justice can be found in a socially
satisfactory fashion through negotiation and bargain of
interested groups and classes.
• Injustice comes into play when there is rule by non-
philosophers, which results in a breakdown in the
appropriate ordering of classes and virtue in society.
• This breakdown is identical to class wars or struggle in
which those not equipped to rule struggle to acquire
power. This breakdown is what Plato witnessed
during his lifetime in the Peloponnesian war, with the
poor wanting to overthrow the rich and the rich
striving to continuously oppress the poor.
 Plato’s Ideas on Censorship.
• Plato frequently expresses hostility toward artists
which arises from his view that art appeals to
feeling and passion rather than to reason and
intellect.
• Poets must write in a way that will further the
objectives of the future rulers’ training.
• Therefore, the poets should be told by the rulers
what elements to stress in their stories and the
limits beyond which they must not be allowed to
go.
• For Plato, the artist knows nothing worth
mentioning about the subjects he represents. Art is
therefore “a form of play not to be taken seriously”.
• The poet by appealing to sentiment rather than
reason, sets up a vicious form of government in the
individual soul.
• Just like Plato, Modern authoritarian rulers are also
keenly aware that poetry, fiction and other kinds of
imaginative literature can be more dangerous than
factual historical, political or economic analysis.
• In the twentieth century the four of the most
influential books against totalitarian
government have been novels,Arthur
Koestler’s Darkness at Noon, George Orwell.
 ARISTOTLE 384-322 BC

• Unlike Plato, Aristotle came from any upper Middle

Class.
• He was a student of Plato (he entered Plato’s Academy
at the of 17 and studied under Plato for twenty years.
• His greatest contributions to political theory were his
works ‘Ethics’ and ‘Politics’. The Politics is still
influential to the study of political science.
• He combined politics and ethics, arguing that they
could not be separated since they serve the same
purpose which is the good of men.
• For him, ethics looks at the good of men from the
perspective of an individual while politics looks at
the good of men from the perspective of society.
• For Aristotle, wisdom is achievable by anyone, he
disputed Platonic belief that wisdom is for a few.
He argued that virtue is achieved through practice,
for him one can become anything by performing
actions related to it. He saw happiness as a result
of reason, action and practice.
 Political Community

• The human community is a complex interrelation of 3

kinds of communities; family, village and state.
• The state is the final end towards which men ‘social life
ultimately aims.
• To him the state “is a community and that it is the
highest of all communities which embraces all the rest,
aims at good in a greater degree than any other and the
highest good”.
• To Aristotle, the state comes naturally to men since men
are naturally social beings and political animals as well.
• He also argues that the state is an organism
with all the attributes of a living being. He was
therefore the first to lay the foundation for the
organic conception of the state.
• The state is a public arena where men come
together to make decisions affecting the
whole community or society. This decision
making process requires debate and therefore
free-speech.
• Aristotle maintains that free-speech is a very
important virtue since he argues that politics
cannot exist without free speech.
• Aristotle added that there must be equality of
free citizens in public affairs otherwise there
will not be any genuine debating. It is only in
the state that men can achieve the highest
freedom which is a condition for man’s
happiness.
• Aristotle believed that male supremacy and
slavery are natural to men therefore he
justified the exclusion of women and slaves
from politics arguing that they are not fully
rational.
• Aristotle thought it imperative for men to take
part in politics, arguing that ‘unless men take
part in politics devotedly, they will not be
genuinely free.
 FORMS OF GOVERNMENT

• Unlike Plato he calls for for the most practical and

workable type of government.
• Aristotle argues that, in an obvious reference to Plato,
that, “there are some who would have none but the
most perfect,” The knowledge of the best state may
have some value as a norm and standard, but, on the
other hand, the best is often unattainable and
therefore the true legislator and statesmen ought to be
acquainted not only with one that which is best in the
abstract, but also with that which is best relatively to
circumstances.”
• Many will should chose the type of
government, community and constitution.
• He posits that the simplest and most basic
classification of governments must include the
number of rulers and the quality of rulership.
• He distinguishes governments that are carried
on “with a view to the common interest” from
those that serve private interests, whether of
one, of few or of many.
 True Governments.
• The kingship’ Aristocracy and the Constitutional
government.
• Each form has its own perversion of which they are
also three, Tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy (the
rule of the poor).
• Of the three best forms of government, Aristotle
holds monarch to be the most ideal.
• He regards monarchs as having the right to rule
because of their pre-eminent virtue and political
capacity.
• They have the right to practise compulsion
and still live in harmony with their cities, if
their own government is for the interest of the
state.
• Like Plato Aristotle puts virtue of the rulers
above consent of the ruled, although both
would prefer to have the ruled submit
voluntarily to their rulers to avoid the
necessity of compulsion.
• Aristocracy deteriorates into oligarchy.
• Constitutional Government (polity)
• Aristotle defines the polity as the state where
citizens at large administer for the common
interest.
• It is a compromise between the two principles of
freedom and wealth, the attempt to, “unite the
freedom of the poor and the wealth of the rich
without giving either principle exclusive
predominance.
• Experience may be superior to that of the few good. Hence he
argues, “just as a feast to which many contribute is better than
a dinner provided out of a single purse”.
• Aristotle holds that the freedom of the poor must be given
some consideration “for a state in which many poor men are
excluded from office will necessarily be full of enemies.
• In practise, constitutional government based on limited
suffrage; turn out for Aristotle to be “the best constitution for
most states and the best life for most men.
• The degenerate form of constitutional government (or polity)
is called by Aristotle democracy and defined as a system in
which the poor rule.
• It is governed by the poor and for the poor only just as
tyranny is government by one for his own benefit and
oligarchy government by wealth of few for their class
benefit.
• But of the degenerate forms, government of the poor for
the benefit of the poor (democracy is the most tolerable of
the three.
• Aristotle names popular sovereignty and individual liberty
to be the two principle of democracy and considers them
in language similar to that of Plato as incompatible with.
•
 How to Ensure Stability of The State

• When people seek public good than their private

interests.
• He was not in support of democracy, though he
appreciated collective wisdom.
• Aristotle argues that a stable government can be
achieved through the adoption of a mixed
constitution based on the two principles of wealth
and numbers.
• No extremes of wealthy and poverty.
• To him poverty causes instability.
• Social stability depend on equitable social and
economic order.
• The need for a middle class. If there is no
middle class and the poor greatly exceed in
number, troubles arise and the state soon
comes to an end.
 Private Property.
• Aristotle argues that “the ruling class should
be the owners of property, for they are
citizens and the citizens of a state should be in
good circumstances where as mechanics or
any other class which is not a producer of
virtue have no share in the state.
• For him property is not a threat to moral
perfection, based his view on four arguments.
• Incentive to progress
• Ownership of property gives pleasure. He
argues that, “for all or almost all, men love
money and other such objects in a measure.
• He simply distinguishes such love of property
from selfishness and considers it rather from
the view point of self respect and mutual self
realisation.
 Property brings liberality
• Under a common ownership of property,
Aristotle argues that no one can afford to
produce generosity and liberty because of the
excessive equalisation of property.
• It takes a system of private property, with at
least some wealth and inequality, to set an
example of liberality or do any liberal action:
for liberty consists on the use which is made
of property.
• Property existed for a long time and that people should not
disregard the experience of ages.
• According to Ebenstein, Aristotle is aware of the evils that
befall men in a system of private property, but he says that
they are due to a very difficult cause-the wickedness of
human nature”.
• To Aristotle the cure of social imperfections is not equality of
property but the moral improvement of man, and the need of
reform is not so much to equalise property as to train the rich
not to desire more or prevent the lower from getting more.
• That is to say they must be kept down but not ill treated.
 Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)

• Was born in Florence on May 3 1469 and died on

June 21 1527. In 1498, when Florence became a
republic, he obtained a position in the government
as a clerk and quickly rose through the
government ranks and was made head of the
second Chancery.
• Chancery-is public office, consisting of a
Committee in Charge of some of the city policies.
The second Chancery was in charge of internal
affairs.
 An Overview of His Political Ideas
• He ended Ancient and Christian political thought for good
ushering in the edge of Modern political thought noting
that for how we live is far removed from how we ought to
live.
• Thus he who abandons what is done for what ought to be
done will rather learn to bring about his own ruin than his
preservation.
• He ushered in a new spirit of realism and empiricism
where political thought begins to look directly at empirical
reality of human behaviour. He lived during the
renaissance period which lasted from the 14th to the 16th C.
• This renaissance period involved a major
transformation in the way man thought of himself
and the world around him.
• Man was glorified rather than God. Man became the
centre of everything and the perception was that man
will rise or fall on his own not because of God's will.
• Man became dependent on his skills and efforts and
this resulted in the self made politician who used or
depended on his skills to grab power or the state of
himself.
• Machiavelli was a traditional figure standing
midway between feudalism and the modern era.
From the wreckage of feudalism a new type of
social organisation emerged called nation-state.
• He had a clear sense of the modern state that lay
ahead recognising that feudalism was on its
decay. He realised that the emerging nation-state
would come about by the hand of an absolute
monarchy.
• The city state of the renaissance Italy was corrupt
and chaotic and the violent political order of the time
required new forms of thought to achieve a stable
and unified state and Machiavelli had a sense of this.
• The political decay, disorder, corruption and chaos of
the renaissance period is what influenced
Machiavelli’s political ideas.
• This political chaos compelled him to approach his
study of politics with a new spirit of empiricism and
realism.
• He wrote two books the Prince and the
Discourses.
• He views all Human relationships as infused by
politics and everything to him was political.
• He arrived at the nature of man through
observation of how people actually behave not
how they ought to behave.
• He observed that people are bad, meaning
simply that they are inherently self seeking .
• To him human beings are naturally selfish so
there is nothing wrong in being selfish
because it is fulfilling human nature.

• Machiavelli described and explained the logic

of power noting that it involves the
manipulation of people's self interest.
• Machiavelli wrote mainly about the mechanisms
of government, of the means by which states
may be made strong, policies by which they can
expand their power and of errors that can lead to
their decay or overthrow.
• To him the purpose of politics is to preserve and
increase political power and he was merely
interested in a single end which is political power
 THE PRINCE
• Manual on the logic of acquiring and maintaining
power and on how to lose it as well.
• Written for the new type of ruler, the political
entrepreneur who attains power by his own
political skill in manipulating the levers of power
rather than the hereditary leader.
• The new ruler must rely upon the effective use of
power to gain and maintain his political position
and to be successful he must learn well the logic of
power
 Two basic rules for power politics;

• The Prince must learn to think about politics in

a strictly empirical way.
• His analysis of politics must be based on
observed reality not on morals.
• He must be very logical in making conclusions
and avoid all ethical ideals since they blind
the political leader to the reality of politics.
• The Ruler must act as logically as he thinks
even if this means violating generally held
moral values.
• If the Prince expects to maintain his power he
cannot himself always behave ideally.
• For Machiavelli the dictates of power requires
logic in action also in theory and for him the
subsequent rules of power follows logically
from these two rules.
• Power should not be shared.
• Never be the cause of another man becoming more
powerful than himself.
• The Prince must find mechanisms for maximising his
control over the various forces because they are as much
a potential threat to his power as they are a source of it.
• The Prince must keep some of these forces depended
upon him and not him depended upon them. To achieve
this dependence the Prince is required to either careless
or annihilate.
• A prince in the first flush of victory is more
likely to make human mistakes. Victory might
make him feel warm and generous; qualities
which Machiavelli thinks might lead to disaster.
Above all, the new prince must not think his
problems are over just because he has won the
battle and the defeated prince has been killed
or has fled, because it is only then that his
problems as a ruler begin. (McClelland 1996).
• Machiavelli’s advice to the new prince in these
circumstances is based on a shrewd estimate
of what his new subjects are likely to be
thinking. Machiavelli noted different groups of
people that are likely to cause problems for
the new prince.
 The First Group

• Those who remain loyal to the family of the old

prince.
• They might be dreaming of establishing a
government in exile which one day return to claim
its territory. The prince’s problem is not so much
the existence of such a group, which is entirely
predictable, but the existence of members of the
old prince’s family around whom this dangerous
opposition will eventually coalesce.
• The prince cannot even identify the malcontents who do not
advertise their hostility and are content to abide their time. It
is important for the prince to identify the members of the old
prince’s family who might become the focuses for resistance.
• The new prince must exterminate the ousted dynasty if he
can.
• “Leaving men alive to whom one has done injuries is always
dangerous and so the prince must not be generous to his
conquered enemies. He should kill them to prevent future
troubles”.
 The Second Group
• Those who supported the new prince in the days of
the old.
• The people who invited and or supported the new
prince in the first place will present him with a lot of
problems.
• Regard themselves as kingmakers.
• They regard the princedom as being in their gift and
they will expect rewards commensurate with what
they have given.
• The best a price can do is to ignore them.
• This will no doubt make them discontented,
but this does not matter very much because
they have no-one to turn to as a rallying point
for the discontent. The rest of the native
population will regard them as traitors, and so
will the family of the ousted.
• Their only help is the prince. They have in fact
been very foolish, because they are in the new
prince’s hands rather than him being in theirs.
• Besides, how could the new prince reward them
sufficiently when their expectations are so high?
He could either despoil his new subjects to
reward people they regard as traitors or he could
reward them with resources from his old state.
• The first could make even more enemies in the
new state and the second would make him
unpopular at home because he would have to
increase domestic taxes to reward foreigners.
 The Third Group:

• This consists of those who watch his entry into

their country with sullen acquiescence. These
might be minor oligarchs or the gentry, people
with something to lose. They have good reason to
be frightened. They are not of the party which
invited the new prince. They do not know what to
expect after a defeat because to the victor belong
the spoils. They can never be certain of their lives
and they expect trouble. Machiavelli warns the
new prince to be very careful in dealing with them.
• The prince must never forget that one day he wants
them to feel that they are his subjects and as
always, Machiavelli think they can be brought
around if the prince does the opposite of what they
expect.
• Doing well to those who expect injuries magnifies
the gift. Real kings are supposed to be generous
and rewarding to those who expect injuries. This
gives the new prince the opportunity to act like a
king at a very little cost to himself.
• “A greatest reward you can give a man is his
own life and the gift is increased in value if you
give a man life when others are losing theirs”.
A new prince will have to do some killing and
this makes all men fearful. The way to reward
fearful men with their own life is to make a
clear signal that at particular moment the
killing has stopped.
• The prince should get the killing over quickly
and perfectly through a deputy who can be
blamed later for over-zealous or exceeding his
orders. But still kill the killer for there is no
better way of showing that executions are
over than hanging the hangman.
•
 The Fourth Group a (People)

• The Prince should find his support upon the people, the masses
rather than the nobility because the aim of the masses is more
honest than that of the nobility in that the masses want to avoid the
oppression while the nobility want or desire to oppress and rule.
• The masses desire only to be left alone having no interest to acquire
power and they do not have the necessary skill to acquire power if
they want to. Therefore, the masses are not a threat to the Prince.
• Machiavelli, however, does not have a blind faith in the masses as
he argues that he who builds on the masses builds on mud.
Discontentment among the masses can easily be cured taken away
while discontentment among the elite is difficult to remedy.
• The politically sophisticated elite is the most likely group
to suspect the motives of the Prince, to distrust his
actions and to look behind them for any other option.
• The elite is the less trusting and more likely to disobey
and resist the Prince's rule.
• The love for power among the elite is the source of
political disorder and instability. Machiavelli does not
suggest that people are naturally good, for him all
people are ready to show their vicious nature when it
works to their advantage.
• The political simplicity of the masses and their
desire for liberty and not power makes them
an ideal group in which the Prince should
found his support.
•
• The prince should be a able use violence effectively.
• Must be employed when needed.
• If violence must be employed it should be used
quickly and mercilessly because man will revenge
for small injuries but cannot do so for greater ones.
• When people are subjected to violence short of
being destroyed they will seek revenge. This they
will do because violence has the unfortunate
quality of engendering hatred.
• For him hatred is something that the ruler must avoid at all
cost because just like passions, hatred transport the
individual outside himself and causes him to make sacrifices
that may include sacrificing one's own life to gain revenge.
• A Prince who causes himself to be hated is in such a position
that he is dealing with people whom he can no longer
control since they hate him and power can only be effective
when the Prince is able to rely upon the normal workings of
human nature.
• When a person hates he stops being rational and control is
lost over such a person thus effective power is finished.
• Machiavelli therefore advises that the Prince
should balance fear and being loved by his
subjects but if there should be a choice
between fear and love the Prince should
choose fear because man love out of their
own free will but they fear at the will of the
Prince.
•
 DISCOURSE
• In the Prince, Machiavelli advocated an absolute
Monarchy and in the Discourses he advocated the
republican in the sense that the stability of a
modern state rests upon its capacity to generate
free mass support.
• In the Discourse he advocates an ideal democratic
system of governance which should be liberal
meaning the right of people to live in relative
freedom to engage in the selection of leaders
without any coercion.
• For a democratic system to exist and persist people must
be trained in civil virtue i.e in the love of one's country
otherwise their natural tendency to maximise personal or
self interests would be predominant at the expense of the
whole society.
• This involves indoctrination.
• Government must be based upon extensive political and
social equality of its people. Great inequality is therefore a
major source of political discord or conflict between and
among groups in society. Inequality is therefore the basis
for power struggle between people.
• There is need for social institutions to complement
the state for Machiavelli argues that the most
important of these institutions is religion. He
praises religion because as a realist he recognises
the political importance of religion. For him religion
gives divine sanction to laws without which people
would have no reason to obey.
• For Machiavelli, the observance of divine
institutions is the cause of greatness for states and
disregarding those institutions causes ruin to states.
• The church is a political resource which the
Prince must utilise to control his subjects and
for this reason he insists that the state must
control the church and its teachings. He
criticised the church of his day in that in its
attempt to dominate political affairs the
church had weakened the state.
• He advocated a liberal democratic country
constrained by the rule of law held together by
social and religious values and institutions.
• He discussed the basis of obedience to law as
authority and not power. Unlike power, authority
exists where people obey because they believe
obedience is morally appropriate.
• Most stable political systems are those based on
authority rather than political power in its coercive
sense.
• In those political systems not based on authority the
leadership is driven to apply the rules of power politics
that he discusses in the Prince. This is because where
internal moral controls are lacking the law can only be
enforced by force and coercion.
• He prefers authority rather than power as a basis of
obedience because power is a terribly ineffective
means by which to compel compliance. The excessive
use of power is self defeating in that the more force
one uses the more resistance it generates among the
subjects.
• It is militarily expensive to use power arguing that
police and the military forces required to exercise
violence on the people may turn against the Prince
eventually. (Libya).
• In the Prince he advises that the leader must keep an
eye on his most trusted advisors, what more then of
the police and the military forces when they have
become the sole basis of his rule. These forces will
easily know and notice when the Prince has lost
support of the population and solely depend on them
and at this point they would become easily irritable.
• It is for these reasons that military regimes
and other forms of dictatorship are highly
unstable. They have no real support behind
them i.e they have no authority they rely on
power, therefore regimes that lack moral basis
of their legitimacy and rely upon the use of
power and force are unstable.
• Coercive power is also disadvantageous
because it lasts only as long as the Prince
survives or is able to maintain his position. On
the contrary authority surpasses the life or
ineffectiveness of the Prince since it is based
on the moral predisposition of the citizens.
• Therefore the primary function of leadership
is to create the conditions for authority as a
basis for governance.
• End.
 Social Contract Theorists
• Social contract theory is old as philosophy
itself. It is the view that peoples’ moral and
political obligations are dependent upon a
contract or agreement among them to form
the society in which they live. Socrates uses
something quite similar to a social contract
argument to explain why he must remain in
prison and accept the death penalty..
 -+3
.
• However, social contract theory is mainly
associated with modern moral and political
theory and was given its first full exposition and
defense by Thomas Hobbes. After Hobbes, John
Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best
known proponents of this enormously influential
theory, which has been one of the most
dominant theories within moral and political
theory throughout the history of the modern
West.
 Hobbes (1588-1679)

• Influenced by civil wars and civil disturbances in the 17 th C.

• The war was between the king and his supporters, the
Monarchists, who preferred the traditional authority of a
monarchy and the Parliamentarians- led by Parliament.
• The former supported absolute government while the latter
advocated for a limited one. Hobbes came to represent a
compromised position between these two factions.
• On the one hand he rejects the theory of divine right of
kings, which is most eloquently expressed by Robert Filmer
in his Partriacha or the National Power of kings.
•
• Filmer argues that the king derived his authority
from God and such authority was absolute.
Therefore, the basis for political obligation lay in the
obligation to obey God absolutely.
• On the other hand Hobbes rejected the democratic
view held by the Parliamentarians that power ought
to be shared between Parliament and the King. In
rejecting these views, Hobbes was viewed as both a
radical and a conservative. Hobbes argued that
political authority should not be divided.
 The State of Nature
• There was no law to govern the people thus
people had to act as they wish.
• He believed that government did not exist at a
certain time in human history and that people
were free to act as they wish without any law
enforcement agent.
• In such a society people followed their instincts
and act violently towards their neighbours.
• People lived in fear.
• They were in that condition which was called war
and such a war was war of every man against every
man.
• They lived without other security than what their
own strength and their individual initiatives could
provide.
• Industry had no place in the state of nature because
the fruit thereof was uncertain. There was no
culture of the earth, no navigation, no commodious
building, no industrial instruments.
• There was no art, no letters, no society and which is the
worst of all continual fear and danger of violent death and
life of man was nasty, brutish and short. (Russell).
• Hobbes had the following to say, “ let him therefore
consider with himself: when taking a journey, he arms
himself and seeks to go well accompanied, when going to
sleep locks his doors, when even in his house he locks his
chests.”
• For Hobbes in the state of nature nothing can be unjust.
Thus, conceptions of right, wrong and justice have no
place in the state of nature.
• Man had the desire to come out of this ill condition. Thus people
formed a contract as an escape route from the state of nature. The
covenant or agreement must confer power on one man or one
assembly since otherwise it cannot be enforced. “Covenants
without swords are but words”.

• The covenant for Hobbes is not between the citizens and the ruling
authority/power. It is made by the citizens with each other to obey
such a ruling as the majority shall choose.

• The only way to create such a common power as may able to defend
them from invasion of foreigners and injuries of one another is to
confer all their power and strength upon one man or upon one
assembly of men. But for certain reasons Hobbes was in favour of a
monarchy- one man rule.
• By conferring power to the ruling elements or
the sovereign, citizens will lose rights except
such as the government finds expedient or
necessary to grant.
• According to Hobbes the right to rebellion is not
allowed because the ruler is not bound by any
contract, whereas the subjects are. Rebellion is
also wrong because it usually fails and teaches
others to rebel. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya,
• The power of the Monarchy should not be divided since
he argued that the English 17th Century civil war
occurred because power was divided between the King,
Lords and the Commons.
• However, democratic theorists argue that the supreme
power whether of one man or an assembly should not
be unlimited (Russell).
• To keep the authority of the state strong, Hobbes
advices the sovereign not to allow the growth of groups
and institutions those intervene between the state and
the individual.
• Thus Hobbes assigns to the state a prosaic/
ordinary business- to maintain order and
security for the benefit of the citizens.
• No political parties, nor trade unions.
• All teachers should be ministers of the
sovereign and are to teach only what the
sovereign thinks is useful.
• The laws of property are to be subject to the sovereign for in
the state of nature there was no property and therefore
property was created by the government which may control
its creation distribution as it pleases.
• For Hobbes, the rights of property were only valid as against
other subjects not against the sovereign. The sovereign had
the right to regulate international trade.
• The Sovereign’s right to punish and to act in whatever
manner comes not from any concept of justice, but from the
fact that he retains the liberty that all men had in the state of
nature when no one could be blamed for inflicting injury on
another.
• Religion for Hobbes should be uniform as directed
by the sovereign. The king must be the head of the
church. (the importance of religion to politics).
• The commonwealth can be dissolved because of
giving too little power to the sovereign, allowing
private judgement, the doctrine that the sovereign
is subject to civil laws, recognition of private
property and division of the sovereign power.
• Hobbes’ main opponents have been the adherents
of parliamentary government and limited powers.
• This doctrine has become the dominant tradition
in most English speaking countries. Thus there has
been no Hobbesian school of thought in British and
American political thought.
• However, Hobbes markedly influenced various
countries with traditions of absolute, despotic
governments.
• Hobbes’ social contract implies that a government is
formed by a covenant that transfers all power and
authority to a sovereign. This contractual foundation
of government is an anathema to modern
totalitarians that are opposed the social contract
because it implies mutuality of some sort and still
important there is no contract without consent.
• Hobbes in Leviathan pleads for equality before the
law so that the rich and mighty have no legal
advantage over the poor and obscure persons.
 Critique

• Hobbesian theory of politics rests on a hypothesis, the solitary,

combative, competitive character of man-that is only a half
truth. (B Russell.)
• It is difficult to see how the brutes who lead a life of nasty and
savagery in the Hobbessian state of nature should suddenly
display the prudent reasoning and co-operative effort that go
into making of social contract creating the sovereign.
• If men were as savage and anti-social as they were in Hobbes'
state of nature they would never be able to set up a
government and yet if they were reasonable enough to set up
a government then they would never have existed without
one.
• Some scholars argue those human beings are
neither so reasonable nor so unreasonable as
Hobbes assume. However, it can be argued
that in the domestic politics the state of
nature had disappeared while in international
politics independent states live in a state of
nature.
• Hobbes adds that a man should be willing to work
for peace and defense of himself and give up his
right to all things if all other man are willing too
since it is detrimental to grant liberty to others if
they would not grant the same to you.
• The prime condition of society is mutual trust and
the keeping of covenants. Hobbes argues that since
all human behaviour is motivated by individual self-
interest society must be regarded merely as a
means to an end.
– End
 JOHN LOCKE (1632-1704).

• He was an English philosopher who lived between 1632

and 1704 whose ideas were influenced by political
events of his time. He lived through a period of political
revolution and disorder and went into exile away from
England only to return when there was a favourable
government in power.
• In short Locke’s ideas were influenced by the experience
of the glorious revolution of 1688 which was part of the
17th Century upheavals that gave rise to the practical
experiences of liberal democracy. This led Locke to
adopt an optimist view of human nature.
• He believed that men were basically good by
nature and they turn towards order naturally
since they are decent beings.
• He also believed that people need no
restraining force and should be left alone to
exercise their rights without regulation as long
as they do not interfere with others.
 The State Of Nature
• Like Hobbes Locke starts with the concept of state
of nature but he travelled on a different path that
also led to a different destination.
• Unlike Hobbes, whose state of nature is little
different from the jungle in which force and fraud
reign supreme, Locke takes an optimistic view.
• In Hobbes’ state of nature there is no natural law
but only natural rights-each individual doing as he
sees fit for his preservation and enhancement of
power.
• On the contrary, Locke could not believe that
human beings can live together without some sort
of law and order and in the state of nature it is the
law of nature that rules.
• Locke argued that, in the state of nature the law of
nature binds everyone and reason, which is that
law, teaches all mankind who will consult it, that
is, being all equal and independent, no one ought
to harm another in his life, health, liberty or
possessions.
• The law of nature through the instrument of
reason defines what is right and wrong. Thus if
a violation of the law occurs the execution of
the penalty in the state of nature is put into
everyman’s hands.
• Thus everyone in the state of nature has the
right to punish transgressors of law to such a
degree that will hinder its violation.
Weaknesses of the law of Nature.
• Locke states that without some agency of
enforcement there can be no law, and that in
the law of nature the injured party is
authorised to be judge in his own case and to
execute the judgment against the culprit.
• The law of nature is therefore deficient in
three important areas
• It is not sufficiently clear: this is because if all were guided
by pure reason they would all see the same law. But men are
biased by their interests and mistakes, the interest for
general rules of law.
• Second: Lack of third party judge who has no personal stake
in disputes. Ebenstein notes that Men who judge their own
conflicts are apt to be carried away by passion and revenge.
• If a violation occurs, the execution of the penalty in the state
of nature is put in every man’s hands. Everyone has the right
to punish the transgressor to such a degree as may hinder
violation again.
• Third. In the state of nature the injured party
is not always strong enough to execute the
just sentence of the law.
 The Social Contract

• Thus notwithstanding, all the privileges of the state of

nature, men were quickly driven into society to escape
the ill conditions of the state of nature.
• For Locke the purpose of the social contract is to
establish organised law and order so that the
uncertainties of the state of nature will be replaced by
the predictability of known laws and impartial
institutions.
• Thus men formed a society because the advantages of
the state of nature seem to them to be far outweighed
by its disadvantages
 Locke’s Views on Government

• Locke argued that government ought to be strictly limited

because it was not more than the sum of its parts and its
purpose was to serve its people. Society had to use the
will of the majority in making policing and individuals
opposing it were expected to accept the majority decision.
• Thus after society is set up by the social contract;
government is established by common trust.
• The people are above the government they create.
Government is charged with the administration of society
by the people who create it in their own interest.
• The government assumes obligations and the people
remain with the supreme power to remove or alter
the government if it does not serve their needs. Thus
power of government is limited by the people
creating it.
• Locke believed that people ought to be governed by
a parliament elected by citizens who owned property.
• He also called for the separation of the executive and
the legislative powers with the legislature as the
direct agent of the people.
• For Locke government should be limited by the people and
its power should rest on the consent of the ruled.
• Locke lists four major limitations on the powers of the
legislature.
1. The Law must apply equally to all.
2. The law must not be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and
fortunes of the people. For it being but the joint power of
every member of society given up to that person or
assembly which is the legislator. It can be no more than
those persons had in a state of nature.
3. The legislature must not raise taxes without the consent of
the people or their representatives.
4. The Legislative power must not be transferred.
• He also believed that people needed no
restraining force but should be left alone to
exercise their rights without regulation as long
as they did not interfere with others.
• He had an inclination towards liberalism which
was strengthened by his experiences while in
exile in Holland where he saw that political and
religious liberalism were possible.
• Locke accepted the Hobbesian idea that the
purpose of government or political authority is
to secure peace, safety and well-being of the
people
• For Locke only the people have rights in the society
while government has duties which are defined by
the interests of the people.
• Locke believed in natural law and made it a duty
for government to find law and not make law.
• Men give up the state of nature for civil society for
the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and
estates/ property.
• For Locke all peaceful governments come into
existence through the consent of the people.
• For Locke, the principal purpose of government is
to protect private property.
• End
 Jean Jacques Rousseau 1712- 1778

• Was a Frenchman whose philosophy was

influenced by his poor background and
irregular and undisciplined education.
• His philosophical ideas were a reaction against
aristocratic and intellectual artificiality and
formalism, political despotism and hypocrisy
of the learned.
• He instead advocated simplicity, equality,
naturalness and happiness.
• Extolled natural man at the expense of
civilized man.
• For him the glory of the civilized refinement is
a uniform and perfidious veil under which he
saw jealousy, suspicion, fear, coolness,
reserve, hate and fraud.
• In the ‘Discourse on the origin of inequality’
he distinguishes 2 kinds of inequality. Natural
inequality consisting of differences in age,
health, bodily strength and qualities of mind
and soul. Then moral or political inequality
which owes existence to social institutions and
consist in privileges of wealth, honour and
power.