Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau’s Theories on Nature of Governance and the Role of Social Contract

Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course Code
Date
Part I
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau’s Theories on Nature of Governance and the Role of Social Contract
The 17th century was one of the most destructive Europe had ever witnessed as a civil war between parliamentary rights supporters and the Stuart Dynasty, which lasted for about ten years. Although the war never took too long, it had several consequences like persistent guerrilla warfare, famine and diseases, recurrent rebellion, and revolution, which caused suffering and instability for many more decades. The grief resulting from civil wars raised some debate surrounding issues like the natural human condition, civil society, and the best governance structure to prevent further public instability. As absolute monarchy (rule of kings) weakened, philosophers started to argue and debate for different forms of governance (democracy). Consequently, the debate produced two brightest philosophers in Europe (Friend): Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose political philosophy also centered on the "state of nature." 
Comparison of their States of Nature, Governance, and Social Contact theories
Both philosophers established their arguments around the "State of Nature" to explain why people develop societies, and they found quite different propositions on the same. Although they had contrary opinions, their ideologies had a significant influence on human civilization (Shea). Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) illustrated that the State of Nature was characterized by violence, where people regularly competed for resources and power. According to Hobbes, such life characterized by violence and competition over inadequate resources is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."In his views, Hobbes claimed that state authority's formation was a necessary effort to stem continuous violence, and the community to collectively put their faith in a more substantial power. For Hobbes, the State of Nature is anarchic because individuals are nearly equal and have a natural right to everything despite different people's interests. Because there is no sovereign authority to arbitrate disputes, all people fear and disbelieve every individual; thus, no justice, business/trading, or upholding of moral values. The uncertainity will cease when people accept to give up their freedoms to a higher sovereign civil authority, the Leviathan (a monarchial figure), in exchange for protection (Martz).
Therefore, Hobbes advocated for a governance system that would not divide state powers among different sects but unified under one individual's authority, a king. On the "Social Contract," Hobbes argued that the sovereign authority created by the people (by laying down their natural rights) would make and enforce laws to protect the society. Hobbes further claimed that social contract was a covenant among individuals only, but not between the people and the sovereign power, and they would not have the right to revolt against the king. He further advised the church to be one of the king's government departments since religion could cause civil war (Merriam).
John Locke (1632-1704) took a contrary stance. In Locke's perspective, the State of Nature was a state of free...