Introduction
Political scientists provide varying definitions of the sovereign body. As a rule, it is viewed a legitimate entity that exercises full legal and administrative control over people who live on a certain territory (Hansen & Stepputat 2005, p. 10). There are various theories that strive to explain the formation of the sovereign body and its major activities; probably the most important one is the theory of social contract. It is based on the premise that people can give away some of their individual rights to the state that can defend them against injustice. This paper is aimed at showing that a fully sovereign body cannot be fully bound by any law, not even the social contract itself. In particular, this essay will show that the state can abuse its authority if people do not actively monitor its policies and do not participate in the political life of the country. It can be done by exploiting the differences in people’s interests and manipulating their opinion. The social contract can be the key to the formation of the sovereign body, but it does not always limit its authority. Moreover, it does not ensure the accountability of the state. This is the main thesis that has to be illustrated.
The sovereign body and the sources of its legitimacy
In order to understand why the power of the sovereign body cannot be fully bound, one has to look at different ways in which it can be established. Among them, it is possible to single out tradition, charismatic leadership, and the consent of people (Hansen & Stepputat 2005, p 25). In the first case, the authority of the sovereign body usually, a monarch, is accepted because such a form of government has existed for a long time. In other words, the longevity of the sovereign body serves as the major justification for its legitimacy. The rulers, who acquired their power in such a way, can abuse it by arguing that this authority was granted to them by the right of birth or even by God. Very often, such people act as absolute monarchs, and there is no external body that can restrict them.
Secondly, it is possible to speak about charismatic leadership in which that the sovereign, usually a dictator or a monarch, is believed to possess some extraordinary intellectual qualities or a high degree of moral integrity. In this case, the power of the sovereign body is also not limited in any way. More importantly, each decision that such a person takes is justified by his or her alleged wisdom, intelligence, and insight. Normally, such leaders strongly rely on propaganda in order to justify their policies.
The most complicated case is the consent of people or their agreement to give away some of their rights for the sake of achieving common goals and interests. Overall, the social contract is believed to be the most optimal way of creating the sovereign body because the governed people can set limits on the state and ensure that this entity is accountable for its policies (Morris, 1999, p. 234). However, there are several ways in which the government exploits the differences in people’s interests and opinions. Moreover, they can explore some logical inconsistencies within the social contract itself. These issues will be discussed in more detail in the following sections of the paper.
Lack of agreement among people and their irrationality
The underlying principle of the social contract is the voluntary consent of people to legitimize the authority of the state. In his book The Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau identified the foundations of society. In particular, he says, “unless there were some point in which all interests agree, no society could exist” (Rousseau, 1998, p. 25). The main premise of social contract theory is that people have a shared understanding of how a state should act and what kind of rights it has to protect.
Moreover, one should not forget about the form that the sovereign body should take, for example, democracy, monarchy, or dictatorship. The main issue is that very often, people do not have such a shared understanding, and it is possible that people can grant a higher authority to the state. For instance, there are many individuals who may believe that the government should actively regulate the functioning of the economy. In the long term, the sovereign body can acquire almost unlimited power.
This limitation was seen by early critics of social contract theory; for instance, one can mention David Hume. He acknowledges that the consent of the governed can be ideal foundations for the creation of the state, but at the same time, this philosopher points out that “it has very seldom had a place in any degree and never almost in its full extent” (Hume, 2006, p 336). This is one of the circumstances that the state can exploit.
Secondly, the formation of a sovereign body is largely derived from the idea that people can act as rational agents. In the introduction to his Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes views as a human being as “rational and most excellent work of Nature” (Hobbes, 1976, p. 1). The idea implies that people will be careful enough to ensure that the sovereign body has to adhere to certain rules and standards. Moreover, the social contract theory is based on the premise that individuals can make informed decisions that are supported by relevant information.
However, various historical examples demonstrate that in many cases, people’s decisions can be influenced by propaganda, populist appeals, and animosity toward a certain ethnic group or a social class. Therefore, the government that they establish is very likely to be authoritarian. These examples are important because they demonstrate that it is not always possible for individuals to achieve an agreement and that the decisions of people can be irrational and ill-informed.
The third way in which the sovereign body can acquire almost absolute authority is the so-called tacit consent of people. The thing is that people do not usually give explicit oral or written consent in order to give authority to the state. They do not say that they agree with the rules and norms that the sovereign body sets. There were cases when the citizens were forced to take the oath of allegiance to the state, but such consent can hardly be viewed as voluntary and independent. In political science, there is such a concept as a tacit consent, which means that by entering a territory of a certain state or by staying in this country, a person automatically acknowledges the right of the sovereign body to serve justice (Morris, 1999, p. 234). According to this logic, the residents of a country, who did not choose to leave it and did not rebel against the sovereign body, gave tacit consent to legitimize the state.
This argument is often used by totalitarian states and authoritarian rulers who argue that lack of protest means that people are satisfied with their policies. David Hume saw the limitations of such an approach and compared such people to sailors who are forced to accept “the dominion of a master” because otherwise, they will have to “leap into the ocean” (Hume as cited in Morris 1999, p. 234). This metaphor can be of crucial importance because it shows that it has different ways of justifying its actions and laws. Certainly, this justification is based on a flawed argument, but it is still used by many political leaders who wish to retain their power at any cost.
The powers of the sovereign body
To explain why a sovereign body cannot be bound by any law, one should first look at the characteristics of such an entity. First of all, it has to have supreme authority over law-making. It has to decide whether a rule can benefit the entire society. Therefore, the state can enact laws that can grant it almost unlimited authority and justify it by arguing that in this way, they can better protect the interests of citizens. Certainly, people who legitimize the authority of the state may intentionally set limits on its power and ability to create laws. There can be some founding principles that a sovereign body will be forbidden to abolish, for example, the right to free speech, privacy, property, religion, and so forth. Such limitations can be seen in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. However, some of such principles can be overridden as it was done in Germany in 1933 when the Nazi Party came to power. Again, this decision was justified by the alleged necessity to protect society from internal and external threats.
Overall, even advocates of the social contract agree supreme control over law-making can be very dangerous. For example, in his Leviathan Thomas Hobbes argues that by delegating the authority to the sovereign body, people oblige themselves to obey its laws (Hobbes, 1976, p. 235). Again this is an argument that is often used by the state. Certainly, Hobbes also makes a distinction between just and good laws. In this case, the term “just laws” refers to those rules that are set by a legitimate authority to which people consented, but such rules are not necessarily good. He explicitly states that “a good law is that which is needful for the good of the people” (Hobbes, 1976, p. 236). Although Thomas Hobbes does not tell it explicitly, his distinction of just and good laws indicates that the sovereign body does not always act in the best interests of the community. However, in his book, he does not explain how people should act when the sovereign body abuses its authority. More importantly, in his opinion, revolution is absolutely inadmissible. This attitude toward revolution is often shared by totalitarian states.
This idea was opposed by John Locke in his Second Treatise. This philosopher was also an advocate of social contract theory, but he believed that people had a right to disobey the state when they believed that its policies and laws do not contribute to the general well-being. Namely, he believes that “the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of anybody, even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish, or so wicked, as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject” (Lock, 2010, p. 150). This is a crucial argument because it shows that people should have a distinct right to dispute the authority of a sovereign body when they think that it is necessary.
However, Locke did not specify the conditions when the people as a collective body should protest against the state, and this protest should be expressed. Moreover, he did not tell how the state can protect its authority. This ambiguity can also be used by the sovereign body. For instance, it can use military force and censorship to protect itself against the very people who legitimized it. Thus, social contract theorists do not clearly explain the strategies of people who may be dissatisfied with the state, and this limitation creates a significant loophole for the sovereign body.
General will and legitimacy of a sovereign body
When people speak about the power of the sovereign body, they often mention such concepts as general will introduced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. This term can be understood as the collective will of individuals that dwell in a certain country or territory (Rousseau 1998, p. 9). Thus, the sovereign body can take almost any form, such as monarchy, republic, or oligarchy, provided that is consistent with the general will. This is the danger that one should not overlook because the idea of general will can be used as a shield by many totalitarian states in order to justify any violation of human rights.
It is worth noting that Rousseau had conflicting views on the general will. He thought that it always tended “to the public advantage,” but he also acknowledged that individual decisions of people could be manipulated or misrepresented (Rousseau 1998, p. 29). In his view, such a problem can only be solved if the residents of a country are sufficiently informed and are able to make independent decisions.
The main issue is that Rousseau and other advocates of the social contract could have underestimated the danger of such a risk as to the tyranny of the majority. In other words, one can speak about a situation in which a numerical majority introduces laws that oppress minorities (Bryce 2007, p. 336). In this regard, one can mention the existence of slavery in the United States or the anti-Semitic Nuremberg Laws in Germany. Therefore, one can say that general will can make the sovereign body legitimate, but not necessarily good. As has been said before, people do not always make informed and rational decisions. This is a problem that the advocates of social contract theory still try to resolve.
Another justification for the sovereign body can be the premise that it is formed by members of the community and that these people will not act against the interests of the society. In other words, their policies will be consistent with the general will. Yet, this premise overlooks such an issue as corruption and its effects on individuals. In fact, it is quite possible that people who will form the sovereign body can disregard the long-term interests of the community. Yet, they can put their policies in a more favorable light with the help of controlled mass media.
In this regard, one can mention such term as kleptocracy or the government, which exists only to maximize its financial wealth at the expense of the entire population. Benjamin Franklin once expressed an argument that in a free country, “the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns” (Franklin as cited in Crane & Pilon 1994, p. 75). Unfortunately, very often, it is just the other way around, even though the government of a country may claim that it is democratic. Hence, general will alone cannot be the foundation for a sovereign body because sometimes even collective will of people can be fallible or at least misunderstood. Secondly, despite the arguments of social contract advocates, people, who form the sovereign, do not always pay much attention to the general will. Most importantly, sometimes, the sovereign body has the means of controlling and shaping public opinion.
Discussion
This discussion shows that there are several circumstances that can invalidate the premises of social contract theory. First, one can speak about the disagreements about the role of the state and its functions. These disagreements can create opportunities for the sovereign body to acquire unlimited authority. Secondly, the power of the sovereign can be extended through the so-called tacit consent of people. Finally, as it has been shown, the general will of people can be shaped by propaganda and irrational beliefs of people. These are the main limitations of the social contract theory.
Yet, despite these limitations, social contract theory still the most convincing approach to the formation of a sovereign body. Moreover, the ideas expressed by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau can be used to protect people against the hypothetical oppression on behalf of the state. The works of these philosophers demonstrate that citizens have to be attentive to the policies of the state. Moreover, they have to regard their civic rights as something inalienable; otherwise, they run the risk of losing any control over the state and losing the rights that they considered to be inalienable.
Conclusion
The power of the sovereign body and the extent of this power are the issues that have always attracted the attention of philosophers and political scientists. The social contract is essential for the formation of the government, but it does not guarantee that this sovereign body does not abuse its authority. Propaganda, differences in people’s interests, irrationality are the methods in which the sovereign body can manipulate people to extend the degree of its authority. As it has been argued at the beginning, active participation in the political life and awareness of one’s rights can the only way of binding the sovereign body and making it accountable for its policies.
References
Bryce, V 2007, The American Commonwealth, Cosimo, Inc, New York.
Crane, E. & Pilon R, 1994 The Politics and Law of Term Limits, Cato Institute, Washington.
Hansen, T. & Stepputat, F 2005, Sovereign Bodies: Citizens, Migrants, And States In The Postcolonial World, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Hobbes, T 1976, Leviathan, Forgotten Books, New York.
Hume, D 2006, Moral Philosophy, Hackett Publishing, London.
Locke, J 2010. Second Treatise of Government, MobileReference, New York.
Morris, C 1999. The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, Rowman & Littlefield: Chicago.
Rousseau, J 1998, The Social Contract: Or, Principles of Political Right, translated by Tozer, H., Wordsworth Editions, New York.