What happens when the social contract fails?

A philosophical analysis of Venezuelas situation The social contract is a concept that appears strongly in political philosophy and it is an angular stone in modern ethics. It implies basically that respecting the Law in the correct way to behave even if youre giving up your freedom to this cause. It also gives a moral justification to the use of force by the state to secure the fulfillment of the contract by all the members commonwealth. But what happens to this justification when the state can no longer secure the fulfillment of the contract by others? What happens to the contract when people regain their freedom to kill and to steal with total impunity? Since the beginnings of the decade the number of murders in Venezuela have arise alarmingly; in 2013 the number of murders reported was greater than 24.000, a much larger number than that of Iraq on the same year. And lately, giving the bad economic and social situation, people had gone out to protest in the streets; sometimes violently, and the government has act with strong repression. Is it okay to protest violently and affect social order? Is it okay to repress for the sake of social order? To analyze the ethics of this situation Ill refer to Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau in their ideas of social contract and moral philosophy. Well find out that the validity of the contract in this nation has failed and that making an ethical judgment is much more difficult than what the law implies. Well also look in the social contract theory for a solution to this problem. For our three social philosophers the lack of security in a community, the sense that our lives are not being preserved, immediately means the dissolution of the social contact. Rousseau establishes that the purpose of the contract is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate and that on the violation this one resumes his natural liberty. Hobbes writes on Leviathan: if there be no power erected, or not great enough for our security, every man will and may lawfully rely on his

own strength and art for caution against all other men and finally Locke establishes that if the current state doesnt guarantee what he calls natural rights (life, property, health and liberty) people has the right to resume their original liberty. In all three cases, natural liberty, original liberty and the right to rely on our own strength in order to preserve ourselves are freedoms that we handle to the state so that that it guarantees, among other things, our right to live. We might regain these rights if the government does a bad job on securing our life. If this is to happen, morality is no longer dictated by the fulfillment of law, but by something else (Ill get to that in a moment). In Venezuela it is clear than in our current state the sense of self-preservation goes beyond the duty to obey the Law. One good example if this, is that in most cities at late night, people hardly stops at a red light (which is illegal) because they put themselves at risk of being carjacked, and this can hardly be morally criticized. The question is not if the contract needs to be dissolved, because ethically it seem to have been ruptured since the condition of Venezuelas public safety began to deteriorate in such way. The question is: If the contract is dissolved, are we in the state of war or are we in a state of nature? First lets see what Locke, Rousseau and Hobbes have to say about the state of war (the idea of being at war isnt at all unreasonable because of the number of murders that were reported last year). According to Rousseau, war is a relation, not between man and man, but between State and State, and this is clearly not our actual scenario; even if there has been some allusion by the Venezuelan government that agents from the Unites States have been involved in the violence lived in past days, the whole state of the northern country (or any other) is not involved in the problem of delinquency that we are living, so by Rousseau standard we arent is a state of war. In Hobbes philosophy being in a state of war is the same as being in the state of nature which consists in a war as is of every man against every man and in which coexistence with

others in impossible because men have no pleasure (but contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company where there is no power to overawe them all because of the distrust and violence that is essential of mens selfish nature. Such a pessimistic reality is not what we actually have in Venezuela, as people still are able to work, study, share time with friends and family. Actually, even in the mid of the violence we might be subjected to, social life is possible and diverse. So if we are in a state of war, it has to be Lockian. Locke establishes that force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war, and when this happens, self-defense becomes more important that the aggressors natural rights (natural rights still apply morally to everyone else). This might be a good description of our current situation, but only on the moments that our lives are in danger (as in the example of the violation of traffic light); on the rest of the times Locke establishes that we ought to live in the state of nature if there is no power to appeal. Now, taking into account the level of impunity and the inefficiency in the Venezuelan judicial system, couldnt we say to be in a genuine state of nature? What all philosophers agree on the state of nature is that we are completely free (even if they have different definitions for what freedom is). In the cases of Hobbes and Rousseau there is no morality, specifically Hobbes establishes as the only rule that of survival. On Lockes case men have to obey Natural Law, and that is to respect the natural rights of others. In our current state the amount of freedoms in Venezuela is huge. Millions of people violate transit law every day without even thinking about getting caught. In fact, It wouldnt be at all hard for anyone (rationally) to kill or rob someone with impunity (people do this every day; actually, the recent murders in the manifestations that have got so much media attention are still unpunished at the day Im writing this). With this kind of freedom and with the after mentioned dissolution of the social contract we might say we are in a certain state of nature.

If we are, this state of nature is certainly not Raouseaean, as rationality and morality exists among us and we dont behave like animals (I hope so!). And the after-mentioned pessimistic view of Hobbes doesnt apply also: society still maintains its forms and humans relations are possible, labor in possible; it seems that Venezuela its closer to a Lockian state of nature, and this is ruled by the morality of Natural Rights. In this sense, any of the killings that have taken place in recent events arent morally justified; the repression by the government of the recurring manifestations, which have affected social order by blocking streets, arent justified as well because even if it might be argued that protesters have retrieved the free movement on the cities, a menace to the right freedom only justifies the use of force in extreme like that of slavery (if the social contract were valid tough, the blocking of the streets would be illegal, and the government would do good in using the power given to them by the people to secure the fulfillment of the contract). Violence is justified only for self-defense and that might be the case on certain occasions in the numerous confrontations of the past weeks from either side, but the government cant act violently in the name of the law and social order. Ill like to state that my point is not to justify a revolt or an undemocratic change of government. In Lockes terms, even if this is a bad government because it doesnt secure out natural rights, the last elections showed that the consent of the governed dictates that the actual government must stay. Even though my point is that theres no government because the social contract is invalid, if there would be one it should be the one actually in office according to the consent of the governed (actually the constitution itself in the article 3501 calls the people to not recognize a tyrannical government, but under current circumstances the constitution is not valid). What is a stake is something much more basic: self-preservation. The situation in Venezuela is
1

Artculo 350: El pueblo de Venezuela, fiel a su tradicin republicana, a su lucha por la independencia, la paz y la libertad, desconocer cualquier rgimen, legislacin o autoridad que contrare los valores, principios y garantas democrticos o menoscabe los derechos humanos.

different from that of Ukraine, for example, because people are getting killed every week by criminals and because of the amount of impunity that exists. The philosophic value of life is being lost in Venezuela. Murders are just a statistics, and the natural right of life, or the law of preservation, which is the primary objective of the social contract, is not being fulfilled by the state. So, does the Social Contract offers any solution to the situation that aggravates Venezuelans today? We see, on a work titled Citizens, State, and Good Governance: Building a Social Contract in South Sudan from the OXFAM, that even in such fragile situation a new contract may be made by the civil society and the actual government. The proposal is to build a new social contract that promotes what they call constructive engagement which consists in being able to work with both civil society and government at all levels to build accountability, transparency, and mutual trust. The social contract must have roles for each party, government and civil society, in the reconstruction of the country. This idea is not completely strange to us, as the concept of popular power has been around Venezuelas politics for more than a decade. Nevertheless these efforts are always coordinated by the government and civil society cant never itself act independently as a part of the deal. The organization of civil society as an entity without the need of political representatives might be crucial for the upbringing of a country in such a bad economical and social order. Also the willingness of the government to recognized them as a political entity and to make a new contract with them, which in particular is nowhere to be seen. Certainly, if the state fails to secure the life of its people, civil order is endangered; it is as if we were in the state of nature. In such disaster, the moral authority of the government weakens, as self-preservation becomes more important than law. By consequence, the means by which society stands is more of a natural law followed by the majority, than by the actual fulfillment of the constitution of the republic. Because of its infectiveness, we can take our actual government

as it not being a sovereign, and we can see that Hobbes state of nature doesnt apply when this occurs. Ethically, in this state we can turn to the Natural Law of Locke for moral guidance. Here well find that the social contract has dissolved and that, if our own natural rights are endangered, we might declare a state of war and use violence justly. Despite this situation, a new contract can be made but In order to do so civil society must appear as a whole entity. Even if Venezuela is such a divided country in terms of politics I do see a possibility of this union towards the solution of common problems as is actually being propose by some community leaders; if it doesnt happen now, maybe when things get even worse.