For centuries, philosophers have debated the role of law in shaping political communities and institutions. Law is not merely a set of rules imposed on individuals, it is deeply intertwined with how societies conceive authority, order, justice and collective identity. Amongst the most influential thinkers in this domain are Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Both thinkers are key proponents of the social contract theory, a framework which posits that legitimate political authority arises from an implicit agreement among individuals to form a governed society. However, despite this shared foundation, they offer sharply contrasting perspectives on the nature of humanity, the necessity of government and the function of law within a society.
Thomas Hobbes asserted that the natural state of humanity is one of unpredictability, characterised by perpetual insecurity and driven primarily by the instinct for self-preservation. He famously described life in this state as, “nasty, brutish and short”. This precarious condition fosters a pervasive sense of fear and the constant potential for violence. In such a state of nature, individuals possess a natural right or “right of nature”, to use any means necessary to protect their own lives. In order to move towards a more structured and secure society, Hobbes argued for a social contract where individuals rationally agree to submit to an absolute sovereign (typically in the form of a monarch). In his seminal work, Leviathan, Hobbes emphasises “the right of nature” as the liberty each person possesses to utilise their power for self-preservation. In the same stride, the “law of nature” is a set of principles that prohibits individuals from engaging in actions that would destroy their own lives. While the right to self-preservation remains inalienable, individuals in Hobbes social contract voluntarily relinquish the authority to judge threats or enact retributive justice, transferring this power to the sovereign.The sovereign's authority, therefore, becomes the sole arbiter of actions necessary for societal stability. Hobbes also emphasised that the laws of nature dictate the pursuit of peace, requiring individuals to surrender certain rights. In other words, everyone with reason should seek peace and be willing to give up their rights in order to achieve peace. The sovereign represents a unified “Leviathan” and is meant to ensure and safeguard peace, order and security by enforcing laws derived from reason. In fact, Hobbes justified the sovereignty of the ruler from their ability to protect the security of the political community.
Hobbes advocated for a secular ruler (and state), prioritising obedience to the sovereign over religious doctrines, shifting away from the divine right of kings towards a system grounded in human agreement and the need for collective security. The primary purpose of the laws set by the sovereign is to prohibit actions that they deem problematic to peace and security. This means that even though the right to defend oneself is inalienable, in the scenario where a person poses a threat to the state and security, the sovereign can overrule the individual's right to life and liberty. In this sense, for Hobbes the essence of law lies in its being a command issued by a legitimate sovereign for its subjects, who are obligated to obey. He takes a positivist approach and distinguishes law from morality or justice. In fact he uses the term “right” or “just” to denote liberty and “law” or “lex” to indicate obedience that one owes to the state. Hobbes defines unjustice as the “not performance of a covenant” and justice as anything that is not unjust.
Baca Juga: The Compendium of Good Practices in Adjudicating Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Cases in ASEAN
Jean-Jacques Rousseau posited that humans are inherently good and altruistic in their natural state. However, societal structures and rules corrupt them, fostering selfishness and inequality. In his words “man is born free and he is everywhere in chains”. According to this, the formation of communities, tribes and states was driven by increasing population and interdependence. This led to the development of negative traits such as greed, envy, shame and pride. While acknowledging the necessity of a sovereign to maintain order, Rousseau critiqued how modern institutions such as law, property and the state have historically served to entrench class rule. In a sense, law and the state became an instrument to legitimize inequalities and allow the wealthy to oppress the poor. To deal with this, Rousseau insisted upon a social contract where people would collectively become the sovereign. His idea was quite similar to what we now know as ‘direct democracy’. The people would express their ideas through a general will that would aim for the common good, rather than individual good.
According to Rousseau, since everyone participates in determining what is best for the whole, individual rights are surrendered to the sovereign. This is the maximum freedom attainable within a state and anyone with a dissenting opinion would be “forced to be free” by adhering to the collectively decided law. Laws and conventions are therefore needed to “join rights to duties and refer justice to its object”. Rousseau said that “in the state of nature, where everything is common, I owe nothing to him whom I have promised nothing; I recognize as belonging to others only what is of no use to me. In the state of society all rights are fixed by law, and the case becomes different.” The object of law is not personal, rather general. The law considers the mass its subject and can set up several classes of citizens but not nominate people into the said categories. Through this idea, Rousseau laid down the principle of equality, he emphasised that while the law can establish a monarchical government, it cannot choose a king or nominate a royal family. Legitimate laws arise from the general will and aim to create a most just society by ensuring that everyone is subject to the same rules. By obeying the laws that the people have themselves collectively willed, they achieve civic freedom and are protected from arbitrary rule. This makes the existence of a legislator or someone with much intelligence and connection to the people, incredibly vital in providing an objective and informed perspective on litigation in the political community.
Hobbes and Rousseau both operate within the framework of social contract theory, believing that law and legitimate political authority are essential and arise from an agreement among individuals. They both also recognise the transition from a pre-political “state of nature” to a more structured political community governed by laws. However, a clearer comparison of both theorists indicates that the source and purpose of law differs for both. While Hobbes perceives law as an artificial construct that allows individuals to escape their perilous condition and establish structured society, for Rousseau
law serves to restore and preserve equality and freedom within the modern social order. Hobbes also provides a bleak depiction of the natural state as a war of all against all driven by the inherent right to self-preservation. Rousseau is a lot more optimistic about the natural state and describes it as one of freedom and inherent goodness. Their ideas of society contrast greatly in this sense. While one sees society as a source of stability, the other insists that it is a corrupting force. Hobbes also views law as the absolute command of the sovereign. This means law is essential and an obligation for people to obey. In contrast, Rousseau sees law as the expression of general will, aiming to achieve liberty and the common good by reflecting the collective will of inherently good citizens.
While Hobbes offers a pragmatic solution to the chaos of a lawless state, his emphasis on absolute sovereignty carries the risk of tyranny and the suppression of dissenting voices. Rousseau's concept of the general will, though complex, offers a more compelling vision of a political community. Law derives its legitimacy from the collective participation and consent of its citizens, aiming for the common good and fostering a sense of shared ownership over the rules that govern their lives. This focus on popular sovereignty and the pursuit of equality through law aligns more closely with modern democratic ideals. The practicality of actually achieving a representative “general will” is in fact debatable, especially in a context like ours. In Pakistan, many (most) people do not have access to education and information, which would make it difficult for them to contribute effectively to the narrative and legislative procedures. The underlying principle of law serving as an expression of collective autonomy and a tool for promoting everyone's rights, holds greater promise than Hobbes top-down approach. Rousseau's perspective is more ethically compelling and gives a more promising vision in terms of freedom, inclusivity and equality.
*Mahnoor Kazmi - trainer of judges at the Punjab Judicial Academy Pakistan; and
*Mahru Hasan Syed - Third Year Student of BA-LL.B Lahore University of Management Sciences, Pakistan
Baca Juga: Family Courts And Restorative Justice For Children In Criminal Cases
(Edited by Maria Christine Natalia Barus - Research and Development)
Untuk Mendapatkan Berita Terbaru Dandapala Follow Channel WhatsApp : Info Badilum MA RI
