The Last Social Contract, Chapter 2: Contract

The Last Social Contract, Chapter 2: Contract

“The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will.”

Thomas Hobbes, “The Leviathan”

In “The Leviathan” Hobbes explains that, in order to escape from a state of anarchy, which is a state of war of every man against every man, all men have to agree to transfer their sovereignty to one man or to an assembly of men, which will therefore hold the power to do all that is necessary in order to guarantee their protection against foreigners and to uphold the peace within the republic.

What I propose is a revised form of the social contract, where the parties are not individuals but republics. Since we live in a situation of international anarchy, which is a state of war of every nation against every nation, in the same way as the state of nature is a situation of war of every man against every man, then every nation should transfer its sovereignty to a common power, who will hold the necessary powers to maintain the peace between nations.

After hearing this proposal, many will criticize it. Some will say it cannot be done. Some will say it cannot be sustained. And some will say it should not be done. However, to all those critiques, I have answers. And if human kind truly aspires to perpetual world peace, than there is no other way to achieve it but this one.

To those who say that such a contract cannot be done, I must say they are wrong, and I shall explain how this contract is possible. There are in the world many international organizations. Some of these are more powerful than others. Amongst the most relevant of these are the UN, the EU, the African Union, the MERCOSUL, NATO, NAFTA and the Organization of American States. These are organizations which are composed of nations, like nations are composed of men. Of the organizations which have been mentioned, only one has a global scope: the UN. To a great extent, the UN has been created in an attempt to fulfil the role of a world power capable of maintaining world peace. It has been created after the most destructive war in the history of mankind: the Second World War. In an attempt to avoid new global wars, the UN has been established. In fact, the UN is not an original idea, since it was preceded by the League of Nations, which in turn had been created as a response to the First World War. The problem is that, like the League of Nations, the UN does not have the powers which are necessary to enforce the peace in the world. Thus, it comes as no surprise that neither the League of Nations nor the UN have been successful in avoiding wars between nations. Imagine a small country. Now imagine that the sovereign of that country does not have an army. Imagine also that, although he is given the power to create laws, and is allowed to build courts of justice and to hire judges, he isn’t allowed to recruit men to enforce the laws and the courts’ decisions. If these were the conditions in such republic, could there be any order in the country? Although people might still consider their sovereign as such, his position would hold no significance other than a title, devoid of power and significance. It happens that the UN, like the sovereign in the example, is only a name and a symbol and has no real power or significance. Where there is no coercion, there is no power. A powerless sovereign cannot keep order. Where there is no order, there is anarchy. If there is anarchy, there can be no peace. International Law, which is embodied in the UN, is useless because it cannot be upheld. If a nation decides to attack another the UN can say it is acting against the law, and tell it to stop the aggression, but if that nation does not stop, the UN has no power to enforce the law. If a dispute between two countries is settled by the International Court of Justice, and the losing party does not agree with the decision, than there is no way to enforce the sentence. Thus, international law without an enforcer is void. The solution to this problem is to provide the enforcer. Either the United Nations must be transformed in order to become an efficient super-structure, capable of enforcing international law, or another organization must be created to assume this function.

I argue that the best way is to create a new organization, rather than to reform the already existent United Nations. This is because the UN has a considerable amount of structural flaws that do not allow it to become an efficient enforcer. In order for the current system of International Law to work the UN must possess a coercive power that allows it to surpass the power of even the strongest of nations. Naturally, in order for this to come true, the creation of a UN army would be necessary. The creation and existence of such an army, however, poses certain difficulties. For instance, who would pay for this army and who would control it? An army that big would cost a great amount of money to maintain and that money would have to come from member–nations, some of which would probably be unwilling to contribute with their share. However, the biggest difficulty comes from the fact that an army that powerful would be in the hands of a small body of people who are not even elected by the people. It is unthinkable to assume that the most powerful nations in the world would abdicate their power in favour of the secretary of the UN. Yet, in order for a UN army to be viable, such a transfer of power would be necessary. It is for this reason that the creation of a UN army is so difficult and unlikely to happen. Yet, other forms of coercion are not sufficient to allow the enforcement of International Law. The system of collective security, for instance, which is supposed to be used like a United Nations army and for the purpose of punishing governments that invade countries illegally, is extremely flawed. Arguably the system could be improved in a number of ways, but it would always be ultimately dependent on the will of the superpowers to work. In fact, the inadequacies of the system of collective security as a mechanism of enforcement of international law have been put in evidence in a consistent way for the last sixty years, with the sole exception of the gulf war, which can be seen as the only successful application of the system. History has equally demonstrated that the economic sanctions imposed by the UN are not, by themselves, sufficient in order to uphold international order. If we combine all these factors, it becomes clear that the UN has structural problems which make it very hard for it to be used as a guardian of International peace. Another very different system should and must be used in order to, in an efficient and feasible way, guarantee perpetual world peace.

Thus, I propose the creation of a world federation, where the power is divided between three levels of government: regional, national, and international. A federation is the only way to successfully transfer the power from the nations to a super-entity, capable of ensuring that the nations do not attack each other. Therefore, the ultimate social contract must be agreed upon between the nations of the world in which each one of them give up their sovereignty to create an organization with the means to enforce world peace.

Unlike the UN, in such a world federation the very condition of member would reflect the willingness of the member-state to be part of this new community, and thus to transfer part of its sovereignty to a higher structure of power. As such, the world federation should and could not be built in a day, since its members should join the federation progressively and slowly, and not all at the same time. This kind of federation has only one precedent in the history of mankind: the EU. The process of European integration stands as a perfect example of how a new order of international law must be formed, where sovereignty is divided between multiple levels of government, replacing a situation of competition between nations for a situation of cooperation between them. The European integration process has proven two things. The first is that the best way to transfer sovereignty to a higher level of government is by a slow and progressive process of power transfer. The second is that a superior entity, capable of providing a framework of cooperation between nations, and thus prevent war between them, ultimately benefits all the citizens of the federation.

However, the process of European integration is not yet complete. The last stage is still to come, and it is essential that it should come. Because without that last step, the social contract between the nations of Europe, and later the social contract between the nations of the World will never be complete. The last stage of integration is the transfer of military power. Until the moment when the armies of the member-states become one single federal army, war is always going to be a possibility, albeit remote. But when all the nations are “kept in awe” by one “common power” (the federal army, which is controlled by the institutions of the federation) than peace is guaranteed since there will be no power in the world capable of generating chaos anymore. (Hobbes, 1660, chapter XIII) This is how the mere existence of a federal army, and the non-existence of national ones, is a sufficient condition to guarantee perpetual world peace. The only thing which would be then left to be feared would be that great common power itself, the federal army and the ones who control it, the ultimate Leviathan.

Yet, aren’t we already afraid of our current national armies and rulers? And haven’t we found ways to control those? Even a beast so powerful can be controlled by good laws, fine institutions and the reverential will of the people. We are not obliged to create a Leviathan with no restraints, because if we did we could all end up as victims of the monster. Let us then create a Leviathan which serves the people, which is a servant of the laws, and which is controlled by institutions that are democratic and accountable. Let these be the terms of the ultimate social contract, which has been designed to grant the people of the world lasting peace and freedom.

The Last Social Contract, Chapter 1: Anarchy

The Last Social Contract, Chapter 1: Anarchy

"It is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known".

Thomas Hobbes, "The Leviathan"

I : Social Contract Theory

Traditionally, political philosophers have dedicated a great deal of attention to the formation of the first republics, and what existed before that. Some have tried to provide a historical account of the phenomenon, while others have dedicated themselves to mere suppositions. Many names have been used to describe the situation that existed before the first republics were created. Thomas Hobbes, the father of modern political philosophy and the first social contract theorist, has used the name “state of nature” to describe a world without republics or laws. John Rawls, the most influential political philosopher of the last century, has preferred to use the term “original position” to describe a state previous to the creation of the laws in a community.

The reason why many influential political philosophers keep going back to “the state of nature” is because most of them believe that is essential, for the construction of a political theory, to start from the very beginning, that is, the moment where the republics came into existence. Hobbes, in particular, decided to provide a description of the “state of nature” in order to illustrate the fact that a world without laws, far from being a utopia, would be a nightmare. His thesis was that, because the “state of nature” was such an undesirable situation, than any form of organized state, any republic, would be preferable. I believe that he was right on that matter. However, Hobbes, like many authors after him, made important mistakes when he described the passage from the “state of nature” to the state of laws. In this paper, I aim at correcting that account by providing one that is more accurate. I agree, nevertheless, with Hobbes on the opinion that a world of total anarchy is not desirable, and that it is paramount, in order to improve our conditions of life, for men to adopt laws and create republics. I agree with Hobbes when he states that a state of anarchy is not desirable, and that the only way to guarantee our safety, is by agreeing to create an artificial political construction, even if that means losing some of our freedoms.
In the next section, I will present a historical account of the political evolution of men which, despite not corresponding exactly to Hobbes’ theory of the social contract, nevertheless gathers the most crucial elements which are present in Hobbes’ explanation of the creation of republics.

II : Theory and Practice
 
In the dawn of mankind certainly there was a time when people lived without laws and republics, and had no organizations more complex than families. But the vulnerability of any single man, living in a similar world, is enough to explain why soon men decided to create republics. At first they weren’t more than clans and tribes, groups that lived together in order to protect themselves against powerful predators and to hunt big animals. The necessity to survive in a wild world would be enough to convince anyone to become more sociable and less solitary. A single man in a world full of predators, and potentially hostile groups of other men, would probably not survive for a long time. Especially if a man was to take a wife and to have children, the need to protect them would certainly persuade him to find the protection of a bigger group of people.

Numbers are not only important for protection, but are also convenient for other reasons. A group of people can do many things that a single individual cannot do. They can hunt big animals; they can build big and strong shelters, as well as bridges and other important works that one man alone could not; and they can make sure that one’s family is taken care of even after one’s death. These reasons were probably behind the creation of the first communities, and thus that state of perfect anarchy, the original position, was forever abandoned.

Thus, the humankind has reached a stage where men, for the most part, lived in small communities, mostly for protection and the gathering of food. In the early stages, these communities were made of hunters-gatherers, until they could master the skill of agriculture. With the constant birth of new members, the assimilation of outsiders, and the merging of different communities, it is not hard to imagine how great communities started to be formed, giving birth to the first real republics.

Even the smallest groups often feel the need to elect a leader, and the bigger the group, the greater the need for a government. In other words, at some point it is common for any group to feel the urge to establish specific functions for its members. Even a small group of hunter-gatherers would feel the need to assign its members to different tasks, such as hunting, gathering, childcare, cooking and building.

The more complex and more numerous a group is, the highest is the level of organization it needs. Probably even small communities of hunter-gatherers would develop a system of leadership. This would happen naturally, as the group’s most influential personalities asserted their innate influence over the others. Even a small group, when alone and surrounded by a potentially hostile world, needs to develop some kind of system of decision-making in order to survive. Often the natural cohesion of small groups is enough to prevent great conflicts between its members, but it is not enough to deal with the making of important decisions in an efficient way. This is why, even in small communities, it is common for one or a small number of members to be in charge of making the decisions in the name of the entire group. As communities grow in size, leadership tends to be institutionalized. And hence the first kings of men are crowned, and the first monarchies are created.

When the first sedentary agricultural communities were settled, the first cities emerged, and around them republics were built. These communities were infinitely more complex than the small hunter-gatherer communities, and thus required a much higher degree of organization. Complex societies need written laws, because of the great number of people that composed them. One cannot imagine how, in any big city, people could ever live without having written laws and courts of justice. Laws are necessary for many reasons, which derive from the cohabitation of a great number of people in the same community. Laws are necessary in order to determine who owns what, and by what right. If they did not exist, no one could be certain of what they owned, and if that were the case any type of business would become impossible to manage. If people were not granted exclusive rights to their properties, what would prevent other people from taking them away from them? And if thieves were not punished, then what would prevent people from assaulting other people in the street in order to take their possessions? Laws were created because they were, and still are, absolutely indispensable for any large community. Without rules there can be only chaos, and the greater the complexity of a Republic, the greater is the need for a set of written rules and the establishment of courts of law. The first communities were small and did not have the need for written laws and established courts of justice since, because of its small number of components, it would be unlikely for them to attack and steal from each other. In larger communities however, this is inevitable, and therefore the consequences of a lack of written laws are infinitely worse in these societies than the consequences of their absence in the primitive communities. For these reasons, the worst type of anarchy is the one that comes from the disruption of authority and laws in a republic where both once existed. This is what people experience when they have the misfortune of inhabiting the territory of a republic that, for some reason, ceases to be guided by one authority or whose laws cease to be applied. In those cases—which are usually brought about by civil wars—man becomes the wolf of man, a process which can only be reversed when authority is re-established.

III : International Anarchy, are we still in the State of Nature?

We live in a world which is divided in Republics. Each of those Republics is guided by a central leadership, and has a set of written rules. Therefore, when living inside of one of those republics, one can affirm that he lives in a state of order. And this is true as long as he doesn’t look at the world around him, outside the borders of his republic. Because if he did, he would see that he still lived in a state of anarchy, albeit of another kind. Men exist in a state of anarchy because there is no leadership common to all, and there isn’t a single republic, but many. There is no set of rules that apply to all men, but only sets of rules that apply to specific republics. Amongst republics, there is no law except for the law of the strongest. There is no judge capable of settling the conflicts between countries; these are only settled by the clash of armies. If a strong republic decides to invade a weak Republic, to steal its land, its goods, or to enslave its people, then it does and it is not punished for what it has done. The citizens of a republic can only be safe if they have a powerful army protecting them, and even then, there is no guarantee of success against any invasion or attack since it has happened many times in history that a number of republics have joined forces to destroy an otherwise stronger enemy.

So is anyone safe in the world we live in? The twentieth century has demonstrated that the Anarchy of Nations can be as dangerous as any other kind of anarchy. The First World War was responsible for millions of deaths, and an incredible level of destruction in the European Continent. That war has devastated the European Continent from 1914 to 1918. It was then followed by an even worst conflict, the Second World War, which lasted from 1939 to 1945 and was responsible for the greatest atrocities ever committed by men against men in our history. The Second World War generated six years of incommensurable destruction in Europe, Africa and Asia, also dragging into the conflict nations from America and Oceania. It was followed by the Cold War, an arms race between the world’s two superpowers, and only by miracle did not evolve into a world-wide nuclear war. With more and more nations acquiring nuclear capability, the rise of communist China, and the revival of Russia, is there much hope that we will not see a global nuclear war happening in this century or the next?

It is not my intention to incite fear into the readers of this text but to assert the thesis that there are several kinds of anarchy, and that none of them is optimal. Throughout history we managed to greatly reduce the degree of anarchy in the world, and by doing so we have been able to acquire comfort, progress, wealth and safety. In return, we had to sacrifice certain freedoms. However, we have not yet achieved a state where we can say that the Human Race has left the stage of political anarchy. We are still confined to the Anarchy of Nations, which is a threat to our very survival as a race, as we make quick and substantial advances in military technology, particularly in the department of weapons of mass destruction. It is therefore convenient to find a solution that allows us to abandon the dangerous state of anarchy we find ourselves in, and thus complete our political evolution from a state of anarchy to a state of order. Our very survival depends on it.