Social contract, elections

The foundations of the Declaration of the Independence of the United States in Congress in 1776 are equality of all men, the recognition that all men are endowed by the creator with inalienable rights, the principal of these rights being the rights to life; liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

These are universal.

The US Constitution is probably the oldest modern written constitution, with many of its underlying concepts inspiring other constitutional democracies.

The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are ingrained. Irrespective of where one finds himself, the rights underscored by the US Declaration of Independence are fundamental. 

Ghana’s Constitution, in its preamble, talks about establishing a framework of government, which secures for posterity and ourselves the blessings of liberty, equality of opportunity and prosperity.

We gravitate towards the preservation of our lives, we seek to live in freedom and we strive for happiness.

The idea of the metaphoric social contract, which is excellently captured in the same US declaration is “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The establishment of government is premised on the back of the metaphorical state of nature.

Francis Fukuyama, in his book, ‘The Origins of Political Order’, has noted that the social contract is basically a compromise to escape from the state of nature where life was short, brutish and nasty. His ideas are drawn from Thomas Hobbes, Rousseau and others. 

Fukuyama captured the nature of the social contract between the governed and those who govern as follows: “To escape from this perilous situation, human beings agree to give up their natural liberty to do as they please in return for other people respecting their right to life.”

He goes on: “The state or leviathan enforces the reciprocal commitments in the form of a social contract by which human beings protect those rights that they have by nature, but are not able to enjoy in the state of nature due to the war of every man against every man.”

In his Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes takes a cynical view of human nature and, although other scholars disagreed partly with him, his view that life in the state of nature is short, brutish and nasty, is more likely to justify the idea of organised government and the social contract that arises from there.

As noted by Nwabueze (1975), man cannot realise his full potential in a state of disorder, which characterised the state of nature. 

Social contract

Organised government must be decided by popular choice of a people exercising free will. Unsurprisingly, Ghana’s election law, including the Representative of the People Law (ROPL), criminalises certain conducts the law contemplates would be calculated to deceive.

An example is treating, which is influencing voters with material gifts. Democratic elections, which are underpinned by adult suffrage, whether it comes every four years or five years, is an opportunity to renew that social contract or terminate it.

Parties generally enter into a contract to benefit personally or to confer such benefits on others. It is instructive to note that this social contract, unlike simple contracts or any other known in the transactional space, has the constitution of the state as the contract document, which spells out the obligations of the parties; especially the executive arm on one side and the sovereign people on the other.

Political party manifestos are yet to assume a status that can be taken to a competent court and enforced against the political party, which put them out. As a result, in Ghana’s case, the “governing social contract document” is the 1992 Constitution.

While the duties of the citizens’ party to the contract are captured under Article 41 and probably under Articles 2 (1) and 3 (3) to 3(7) of the constitution, the relevant contract document includes the duty to safeguard and restore the constitution, the duty of the state is all over the constitution and usually covered under Chapter 5, Fundamental Human Rights and Directive principles of state policy, Chapter 6 and perhaps in a few other places.

These broad frameworks, which are supposed to guide those who govern, are fleshed out in various policies, some of which may or may not have been popular with the citizens. 

Termination clauses

A significant point, perhaps a distinction worth underscoring, is the fact that while in simple contracts between private parties’ termination clauses exist and sometimes allow even for an earlier termination, the case is entirely different for the social contract, which emerges from the metaphorical state of nature.

Under the social contract, presidential or parliamentary elections (in other cases, district assembly), which are held for either four or five years, are the only accepted means to terminate.

The implication is that the decision to vote for a particular person who will be entrusted with obligations under the social contract for a four-year or even five years, must not be taken lightly and should not be tied to emotional sentiments.

It must be based first on considerations of personal welfare and societal welfare. It must not be tied to excessive partisanship. 

Lessons

At a recent Democratic National Convention, where Vice President Kamala Harris accepted her nomination, five notable Republicans appeared and what did they do? It was the country first.

These endorsements of Harris were based on honest admissions, that America could be heading in the wrong direction if Harris was not elected. Never mind Trump eventually won.

The lessons are still relevant. Those Republicans only showed that they were prepared to sign a certain social contract that would deliver for America and Americans.

Which of us is prepared to continue in a contract that is suffocating and distressing because of persistent breaches and dishonesty on the part of the other party to the contract? 

Would you be happy if one party showed good faith by performing their side but the other rewarded you with bad faith and took you for granted?

Which of us will continue in, or even when the opportunity presents itself to renew the contract with a person, his agents, assigns, or handpicks who consistently breach their side of the bargain and because of that the contract confers little or no benefits? 

As Jean-Jacques Rousseau, an influential thinker during the Enlightenment observed, human beings are similar to animals; sharing mortality and vulnerability. Humans have all kinds of emotions and moods just like animals. However, humans differ from animals through perfectibility: the freedom to change.

According to him, the Power of Free Will is what separates us from lower-level animals. The exercise of our free will is free. Our right of choice must not be influenced by inward-looking considerations usually external to our innate freedom.

Prosperous societies are far better than a prosperous few. In coming to the determination whether to renew or terminate the 4-year contract which was previously renewed in 2020 with the government, we should recall the foundations which, as indicated, formed the basis of the US Declaration of Independence; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Do we have a life? If we do, what kind of life? Do we have liberty? If we do, what is the quality of the liberty? Finally, do we have the opportunity?

The writer is a Lawyer and Law Lecturer at the University of Professional Studies, Accra (UPSA)

Writer’s email: Albertquashigah2@gmail.com