The theory of social contract is as old as political speculation. Ancient Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, discussed it, but only to. reject it. The Greek moralists and Roman jurists also deal with this theory. After the fall of Greece and Rome, however, the social contract theory lost its appeal and was put, so to say, in the cold storage of ancient books. For more than a thousand years, no one paid any attention to political philosophies. It was the age of religion, when men’s eyes were fixed on the heavens and on the next life and not on this world.
The heyday of the social contract theory was in the early modern age, i.e., during the 16th, 17the and 18th centuries, when the great controversy between the freedom of the subject and the authority of the king began and when Man was awakening from centuries-old slumber of political life. During the 16th- 18th centuries, this theory had a universal appeal and was widely believed. Its numerous supporters and writers put forth many versions of this theory. Three of them-Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau-have achieved great fame and are today considered as its chief exponents. They are the representatives of its diverse expositions. After the French Revolution of 1789, this Theory was discarded, for reasons described hereafter.
A general statement of the Theory:
Social contract theory aims at die explanation of the origin of the State and its jurisdiction. As regards the evolution of the State, this Theory demarcates three stages, viz: a State of nature, a social contract and lastly, the civil society or the State. Its fundamental assumption was that the past history of mankind was divided by the contract into second after it, when the State was established by the contract Thus the Theory presumes the following three stages, viz:
2. A state of nature,
3. The social contract, and
4. The civil society or the State.
In the first period of human existence, man was found in the “State of nature”, when he was uncontrolled by any law of human imposition. He was guided by such regulations as nature itself prescribed for him. They are called laws of nature or natural laws. They were written nowhere. Man has also some natural rights, but they were no more than his natural power. Some writers assert that the State of nature was pre-social, that is, it was prior to human society; while others are of the opinion that it was pre¬political, that is, it was a society but without any political organization or State. They also do not agree as to what kind of life man lived in the State of nature. According to some writers, it was a condition of “ideal innocence and bliss”, whereas according to others, it was one of “wild savagery, “where migfyt was right. Whether the State of nature was too good or too bad, all social contract theorists agree that men decided to contract out of it.
When the men of the State of nature were compelled to leave it, they entered into a voluntary but mutual agreement or contract to put an end to their lawless condition and establish a State or civil society. Logically speaking, there must by two contract:*^ political or social contract to organise the society or «State, and £ governmental compact to set up a government. But the social contract theorists are not explicit on this point.
Anyhow, as a result of the contract, the individuals gave up their “natural” isolation and joined into one civil society or State. Each individual now submitted himself to the joint control of all and was protected by all against the possible rapacity of any other. Human law now takes the place of natural law. Social duties are imposed upon all and social rights are granted to them.
Sharp differences of opinion prevail among all the social Contractualists, as the writers of this theory are called, regarding the terms and parties of the contract, the nature and extent instituted by it, and on all other points of the theory. But all are unanimous on one essential conclusion, namely, that the State is the result of a contract and is, therefore, a deliberate human citation.