In this blog post, we examine whether it is justified to break the social contract and establish a new one when state power infringes upon the freedom of its citizens, based on social contract theory.
The World as a Whole Understood Through Social Contract Theory
Social contract theory posits that all humans possess natural rights. Since the guarantee of these freedoms and rights is uncertain in the state of nature, people formed a state through a contract and delegated their rights to it. According to this theory, the state can legitimately exercise power to protect the freedoms and rights of its citizens.
However, when the state’s exercise of power clearly infringes upon the people’s freedoms and rights, the people can seek various remedies. To restore individual value, the people can rescind the existing social contract with the state and establish a new one. Examples include presidential impeachment or revolution. Therefore, the President must establish laws and institutional mechanisms to safeguard the people’s freedoms and rights using the power delegated by the people. Furthermore, the President must always recognize that the people can replace the nation’s leader if the state breaches its contract with them.
Some may counter that it is difficult to determine the criteria for when a President infringes upon the people’s freedoms and rights. However, the Constitution already defines the people’s rights. While various definitions exist, considering the recent situation in Korea, the following provision should be the primary benchmark. According to Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, all citizens are equal before the law, and no one shall be discriminated against in any area of political, economic, social, or cultural life on the basis of gender, religion, or social status. If the President intervenes in citizens’ legal administrative procedures, causing inequality, this provides grounds for citizens to establish a new social contract with the President.
A national leader implementing policies for the people
In every nation, the entities exercising power are a minority elite, including large corporations. The original intent when enacting laws is to achieve equality for all citizens. However, once legislation is finalized, it tends to be interpreted in a manner favorable to this minority elite. Consequently, citizens who violate the law are punished as offenders. In essence, the regime’s decisions are made to serve the interests of this minority power structure. When citizens recognize these characteristics, they develop resentment toward national policies. This resentment diminishes the effectiveness of national policies when applied to the people. Yet, the phenomenon of regimes favoring a minority power elite is universal across all nations. The tendency of a strong minority group to prioritize its own interests stems from human instinctive selfishness. Therefore, the president must establish institutional mechanisms to minimize such unreasonable phenomena that can arise within the state.
For example, suppose I became president. My advisors and experts from various departments would handle administrative tasks related to national policy. Policy and legislation would be proposed to favor wealthy groups and large corporations. They would argue that, based on South Korea’s historical development, the state must focus on the capabilities of a few large corporations to achieve the greatest results. In this situation, the president must understand the inherent nature of minority interest groups seeking to create institutional mechanisms that benefit the powerful. Furthermore, while policies may appear advantageous to the powerful in the short term, the President must implement policies that benefit the majority in the long term.
For example, the labor law revision earlier this year included extending the period for contract workers to transition to regular employment from two to four years. This revision appears to reduce corporate burdens by lengthening contract periods. However, instead of merely extending the period, the government should have added provisions to institutionally guarantee a higher conversion rate to regular positions. Furthermore, from the company’s perspective, the burden of severance pay would double, making it difficult to carry out mass layoffs.
A National Leader Realizing the Value of Communal Goodwill
First, I wish to outline the value of goodwill as I perceive it. The goodness I envision is the value of ‘fairness’. Just as one cherishes their own value, one must equally and fairly cherish the value of others. Yet, within communities, actions often run counter to this value of goodness. This is because citizens believe their own community is good and exhibit collective selfish attitudes. Past acts of invading other nations and establishing colonies for national gain are prime examples. Yet we must recognize that the lives of other communities are just as precious as our own. Believing one’s own nation’s interests are inherently good and treating them as an absolute value is an extremely arrogant attitude. Moreover, when acting as a community, it is easy to fall into this arrogance.
Therefore, the president must understand the self-serving nature of communities. And they must always remain vigilant. They must ensure that current national policies are not merely self-serving for our own community. Of course, not every policy can always be fair and realize the value of goodness, but at the very least, the self-serving tendencies inherent in that community policy must be constantly questioned and verified.
Some might counter: that a president’s fundamental role is to speak solely for their nation. Certainly, a president must speak to represent their homeland’s interests in the world. Moreover, in an era where borders have dissolved due to globalization, self-serving decisions are also necessary to protect the nation’s industries. I agree with this perspective. However, the community good I mentioned earlier refers to self-interest concerning values related to human life.
For example, Europe recently faced conflicts between nations over the refugee issue. Some countries refused to accept refugees, while others supported it. If European nations refuse to accept refugees, millions of lives will be endangered. However, unconditional acceptance of refugees carries burdens on social infrastructure and risks of terrorism. Therefore, national leaders must first empathize with the value of human life while establishing reasonable refugee acceptance criteria. Support funds should be distributed among accepting nations, and thorough identity and background checks must be conducted to ensure safety from terrorism or crime. Individuals with violent tendencies or criminal records should be excluded from refugee acceptance.
