In the beginning of the 21st century we tend to accept the social contract as it is and do not  question it anymore. To many of us, brought up in relatively lawful and developed parts of the world, rules governing contemporary states are well known and therefore seem obvious.
The core of social contract does not fall under discussion anymore, however its various aspects still do. To what extent can a government interfere in the life of an individual? What proportion of State's intervention is the healthiest for a society? Are all societies similar or just like humans – seemingly similar but different on the inside?

This short article will touch a piece of Rousseau's The social contract, in which he rightly suggests that social treaty is meant for the preservation of its contracting parties. As each agreement, it is mutual, therefore not only the State has an obligation to preserve its citizens (parties to the contract), but also the citizens are obliged to take care of the State and be able to sacrifice if needed. In Rousseau's vision, it can have a form of taking risk during the time of war, in order to protect the common good. In exact words, the author is convinced that who wishes to preserve his life at others' expense should also, when it is necessary, be ready to give it up for their sake. According to J. J. Rousseau, law of a certain State should determine cases in which its citizens are expected to sacrifice.

One might say, nowadays in most of the European States military service is voluntary, how does then this aspect of social contract theory apply? It applies still very much, as each one of us has certain obligations towards the State and co – citizens and so has the State towards us. Namely, States are to ensure right to participation in public life, education, health and social security, etc. And the citizens owe loyalty (both pecuniary and non-pecuniary) to the State, respect to the co – citizens,  environment, etc.

J. J. Rousseau goes whatsoever far, saying that whoever has broken a social treaty is no longer a member of the State and thus can be adjudged and sentenced either to exile (not too often, as a State abusing punishment is considered to be weak) or even to death (only if such a person cannot be left alive without causing a danger to the rest of the parties to the social contract).

I strongly disagree with this element of the citizen's of Geneva social contract theory.

Firstly, even almost 250 years after the publication of Rousseau's book it is not always easy to be certain whether somebody has committed a severe crime or not and therefore should be anyhow isolated from the society (in some states, still – unfortunately – condemned to death). In this regard I fully accept Voltaire's motto saying: “It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.”

Secondly, jurists are just humans (using senses which often can be misleading) and therefore should not be put in position to use the capital punishment even in case of most severe crimes.

Thirdly, in certain countries, capital punishment is simply a mean of political repression and therefore collides even more with the human rights' law and the idea of justice.

Moreover, as criminological researches have shown, it is not the harshness of a punishment but its inevitability, that prevents potential criminals from committing a crime.

I am aware some may say that certain people do not deserve to live if they have committed some severe crimes and by that broken the social contract. Some may claim: “why should some be treated like humans if they do not behave like humans?”. This argument addresses the imagination of a “proper citizen”, but cannot convince me that the State judicial system is absolute and has a power over life and death of its citizens (no matter how inhuman they are).

Some may argue that prisons are overcrowded and life – long maintenance of prisoners costly, but should practical considerations decide in such crucial matters? Besides, nothing prevents prisoners from working in the premises of prisons.

To conclude, most of Rousseau's visions of a model society and rules by which it should be governed were and still are accurate. The fact that scholars still cite him as an authority is the best proof.

Nevertheless, I cannot agree with the aforementioned element of Rousseau's theory of social contract. This particular issue has lost its applicability in the light of Human Rights documents, especially the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Protocols No. 6 and 13 to the European Convention of Human Rights (in the case of European states). 

Komentari (0)

Prikaži/Sakrij komentare

Prikaši/Sakrij formu za unos