Social Contract

It was Thomas Hobbes who declared that men are incapable of controlling their brutish ways. They enter the social contract with the sovereign, subserviently for protection in exchange for freedom and rights. Each individual enters this covenant at his own will. For Hobbes, men are incapable of breaching this contract, because doing so would be contradictory to its original intention. It would be an act of returning to the state of nature, resorting to the interests of the 'selfish self', that which the individual once was prior to engaging into the social contract.

For John Locke, the purpose of the social contract was for men to maintain protection of their property and estates. In the state of nature, every man was his own king. The insecurity that existed called for a community of men to unite, and give consent to the government. The contract between the people and the state makes each dependent on the other. The existence of check and balances limits arbitrariness and factions. Unlike Hobbes model, the people have the capability to dissolve the government.

Rousseau warns that "Man is born free but is everywhere in chains". Today, I witnessed the people of Egypt untangle a part of the chains. The will of the people was heard, a revolution of non-violence and persistence to oust their own leader. I do not know what will happen next, nor am I sure where Egypt is in the model of the social contract. Especially at this transitional point in time. But I do believe that citizens share a certain power over the state. And that the general will of the people determines the legitimacy of a state's action. And that the the people when united, becomes indivisible.

I think I just witnessed a defining moment in history.
So long, Mubarak. I pray for a smooth transition in Egypt.

In solidarity,