What’s Your Political Responsibility?
The Risk of Disengagement
Newsreel Asia Insight #204
April 27, 2024
Understanding the “social contract” theory, which forms the foundation of government, can shift our perspective on politics. Social contract is the idea that a government derives its power from the consent of the governed. By surrendering some of our rights, we agree to let a governing body enforce laws and maintain social order, so that it protects our other rights and interests.
In his 1651 book “Leviathan,” English philosopher Thomas Hobbes introduced the concept of a social contract to address the “state of nature.” He explored a hypothetical scenario in which there is no political order in society, concluding that life under such conditions would be “nasty, brutish and short.” To escape this chaos, he argued, individuals would voluntarily agree to relinquish their natural freedom in exchange for the advantages of political order, which include security and stability.
In 1689, English philosopher John Locke, who was also a political theorist, took the idea forward in his book “Two Treatises of Government.” He wrote that a social contract’s purpose was to protect individual rights, including life, liberty and property.
In 1762, Swiss-born French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote a book, titled “The Social Contract,” at a time when democracy was relatively rare. In Europe and elsewhere, most countries were ruled by monarchs with varying degrees of absolute power. The divine right of kings was a common belief, suggesting that monarchs were ordained by God to rule.
Rousseau argued that sovereignty ultimately resides with the people, not with monarchs or a select elite. He said a legitimate government must represent the “general will,” which is the collective interest of the populace as a whole. Rousseau also advocated for popular participation in governance, suggesting that the people should have an active role in shaping laws and political decisions.
The broader concept shared by the three philosophers is that the government’s role is to serve the people by ensuring their safety, security and well-being, rather than using its power to “rule” over, or oppress, them.
In India, we can view the Constitution as the charter that outlines our social contract.
But here’s the paradox: if the government is supposed to work for us, why do so many of us feel disillusioned, disappointed and disconnected from politics? Why do we see so much political apathy among the people? One possible reason could be the prevalence of “distraction politics,” which skews our perception of the political landscape.
Distraction politics is a strategy used by politicians and political groups to shift our focus away from governance issues or failures. They do this by highlighting emotive or polarising topics that generate controversy, division or emotional responses. Instead of talking about critical issues like law and order, the economy, healthcare or education, politicians might focus on divisive subjects that draw attention away from their own shortcomings. The outcome? We get caught up in the drama, while the real issues affecting our lives remain unresolved, and the values and mandates of the Constitution are compromised in spirit.
It’s easy to become cynical when politicians seem more interested in stirring emotions than solving problems. Many people avoid politics because they believe that their participation won’t make a difference, or they’re disillusioned by corruption and broken promises. Some even fear reprisal, thinking the government can act against those who speak out.
However, political apathy can be dangerous.
When we step back from politics, we give more power to those who thrive on distraction. It can pave the way for authoritarianism, where a small group or a single ruler wields excessive power with limited political freedoms.
Worse, it can open the door to totalitarianism, where the government seeks to control every aspect of public and private life. In such regimes, people have little to no freedom, and the government dictates everything, from what you believe to what you eat and say.
In authoritarian systems, individuals can remain passive and absorbed in their personal lives without facing any trouble, as these regimes generally allow a degree of individual freedom as long as it doesn’t challenge political authority. However, under totalitarianism, citizens can be subjected to oppression and surveillance even if they avoid resisting the government or engaging in politics.
But there’s hope. Our opinions and their expression hold significant power.
Even the most oppressive governments, like those in North Korea or China, recognise the impact of public opinion, which is why they invest in propaganda and misinformation to legitimise their abuses of power, disregard for fundamental rights or political targeting of specific communities. If our voices had no influence, a regime wouldn’t put so much effort into manipulating public perception and controlling the narrative.
Often to the government’s advantage, the governed forget that democracy is a social contract, in which we are an indispensable party. To ensure the government fulfils its role, our responsibility is to be more involved in political processes—by voting, participating in debates in a civilised and peaceful manner and holding our leaders accountable through democratic means. By being politically responsible, we contribute to a government that genuinely serves the interests of its citizens, ensuring that our rights and wellbeing are protected.