Written by: Hafiz Muhammad Umar
Introduction
In the modern world, concepts such as human rights, nation-states, jurisprudence and social hierarchy have become so deeply embedded in collective political and social understanding that they are often treated as matters of common sense.
However, throughout most of human history, the relationship between individuals and society has remained a subject of intense debate.
The most difficult questions concerned how this relationship should be defined and, more importantly, how the authority of society and the state could be justified.
The social contract emerged as one of the most influential answers to these questions.
Through numerous interpretations, social contract theory attempts to explain how modern societies and political institutions came into existence and why their continued existence should serve the interests of the people who form them.
The Making of Social Contract Theory
Several philosophers attempted to explain how human societies developed into their present political form.
The most prominent social contract theories were presented by:
- Thomas Hobbes
- John Locke
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau
These theories are best understood by considering the historical conditions in which they were developed.
They also rely heavily on the concept of the “state of nature.”
The state of nature refers to a hypothetical condition in which human beings live without established laws, political obligations, governments or social regulations.
Thomas Hobbes and the Need for a Powerful State
Thomas Hobbes lived during a period of political conflict and instability in Europe.
He viewed the state of nature as a condition of constant competition, insecurity and conflict.
According to Hobbes, without a powerful authority to control human behaviour, individuals would compete with and harm one another for personal benefit.
He therefore argued that human survival required an unquestionable authority.
Hobbes described this authority as the “Leviathan”: a powerful state ruled by a sovereign capable of issuing and enforcing laws that everyone must obey.
In the Hobbesian social contract, individuals surrender a substantial amount of personal freedom in exchange for security and protection from disorder.
John Locke and Natural Rights
John Locke developed a more citizen-friendly interpretation of the social contract.
Writing during the rise of capitalism and the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, Locke argued that individuals possess certain natural and inalienable rights.
These rights include:
- Life
- Liberty
- Property
According to Locke, political institutions should exist primarily to protect these rights.
Individuals agree to surrender only a limited portion of their freedom to the state through laws, taxation and civic obligations.
In return, the government must protect their lives, property, freedom and opportunities for development.
Locke therefore favoured limited government rather than the absolute sovereign authority proposed by Hobbes.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the General Will
Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed his theory during a period when Europe was entering a revolutionary age and absolute monarchy was beginning to decline.
He placed the people at the centre of the social contract.
For Rousseau, the state should represent the collective will of its citizens and must always act in their common interest.
Every individual, regardless of social position, should receive equal treatment and representation within this collective will.
Rousseau’s theory closely resembles the modern democratic principle of government “of the people, by the people and for the people.”
These different philosophical interpretations eventually shaped the modern understanding of the social contract as an unwritten agreement defining the rights, duties and responsibilities of citizens and the state.
The Signing of the Social Contract
Unlike an ordinary legal agreement, the social contract is not signed on paper.
It is an implied arrangement into which individuals enter when they are born into a society and begin participating in civil life.
Although the social contract is not a physical document, a country’s constitution is its closest formal expression.
A constitution explains the rules, responsibilities and limits that apply to both citizens and state institutions.
Rights and Responsibilities
One of the most widely accepted elements of the social contract is that every individual must respect the rights of others.
For example, citizens must not violate another person’s right to life.
In return, the state is expected to protect the lives and safety of all citizens.
The state is also expected to create opportunities through which individuals can develop their abilities and contribute to national prosperity.
Citizens, in return, are required to obey legitimate laws, pay taxes and fulfil their civic responsibilities.
Institutions That Protect the Contract
The social contract also contains mechanisms intended to prevent violations and resolve disputes.
These mechanisms commonly appear in the form of:
- Parliament
- The judiciary
- The armed forces
- Law-enforcement institutions
Parliament represents the people and makes laws.
The judiciary interprets the constitution and delivers justice.
The armed forces protect the state from existential threats.
Law-enforcement agencies are responsible for maintaining public order and protecting citizens.
If an individual violates another person’s rights, the legal system is expected to investigate the offence, conduct a fair trial and impose an appropriate punishment.
Parliament may also introduce new legislation to reduce the possibility of similar violations occurring in the future.
Different Social Priorities
The priorities of the social contract may vary from one country to another.
In developed societies across Western Europe and North America, greater importance is often placed on individual freedom and civil liberties.
Many citizens in these countries already have access to the material resources required for personal development and therefore expect the state not to interfere unnecessarily in their lives.
In many countries across Asia, Africa and Latin America, large sections of the population still lack basic services and economic security.
Citizens in these societies may therefore place greater emphasis on:
- Employment
- Education
- Healthcare
- Housing
- Food security
- Economic opportunity
The social contract functions effectively only when the state and its citizens fulfil their respective responsibilities.
When either side repeatedly fails to perform its obligations, public trust begins to weaken.
The Curious Case of the Land of the Pure
Before examining Pakistan’s social contract, it is necessary to understand the country’s political direction and national objectives.
This creates the first major difficulty because Pakistan has faced repeated uncertainty regarding its identity and purpose since independence.
Despite being established as an ideological state, Pakistan required nine years to adopt its first constitution.
From independence in 1947 until 1956, the country continued to operate under the Government of India Act.
Constitutional Instability
Pakistan’s first constitution was introduced in 1956 but remained in force for only two years before being abrogated in 1958.
The second constitution was introduced in 1962 and remained in effect until 1969.
Pakistan adopted its current constitution in 1973.
However, the extent to which its provisions have consistently been respected and implemented remains a matter of debate.
This history of constitutional disruption reflects uncertainty regarding:
- The country’s political objectives
- The intentions of its rulers
- The balance of institutional power
- The nature of civilian authority
- The role of unelected institutions
These internal struggles have contributed to widespread political disillusionment and declining public confidence in the possibility of a better future.
Economic Responsibilities of the State
Regardless of ideological differences, a functioning social contract requires the state to provide its citizens with basic security, resources and opportunities.
This requires effective economic planning and responsible governance.
However, Pakistan’s economy has experienced prolonged difficulties, including inflation, unemployment, debt and weak human development.
The article notes that Pakistan was ranked 164th on the Human Development Index in 2024.
Inflation and declining purchasing power have placed heavy pressure on the lower and middle classes.
The frustration of young people is reflected in the satirical transformation of the patriotic slogan “Pakistan Zindabad” into “Pakistan Zinda Bhag,” suggesting that survival may depend upon leaving the country.
This changing public attitude demonstrates a serious decline in trust between citizens and the state.
Democracy Without Meaningful Choice
Citizens appear dissatisfied with the direction of the country and want political change.
However, the mechanism through which they are expected to achieve that change—free and fair elections—often remains disputed.
Pakistan has repeatedly experienced:
- Interrupted democratic governments
- Political instability
- Premature dismissals
- Institutional interference
- Disputed electoral results
Although democracy is theoretically based on public choice and popular sovereignty, Pakistani citizens often feel that they serve their political leaders rather than being served by them.
Personality Politics and Provincial Divisions
Pakistani politics has struggled to overcome tribal loyalties, personality cults and strong provincial divisions.
Political parties frequently revolve around individual leaders and families rather than clear institutions, internal democracy or consistent policies.
Regional, ethnic and provincial identities often dominate national political discussions.
The country’s history provides a serious warning about the consequences of allowing ethnic and political competition to replace national unity.
Internal political conflict and regional grievances contributed to the loss of East Pakistan in 1971, along with a large portion of the country’s population and territory.
The Persistence of Feudalism
Feudalism remains another major obstacle to healthy democratic development.
This system is partly rooted in Pakistan’s colonial history.
Powerful landowners control extensive agricultural land and exercise substantial influence over local and national politics.
Their economic power allows them to influence:
- Election results
- Local administration
- Access to justice
- Employment opportunities
- Distribution of public resources
Throughout Pakistan’s history, powerful landowning groups have sometimes supported policies that protected their own interests at the expense of national development.
Feudal influence has also weakened the delivery of justice and public services in rural areas, where a large proportion of Pakistan’s population continues to live.
The Credibility of Elections
The validity of elections remains one of the most serious issues affecting Pakistan’s democratic system.
When citizens doubt the fairness of an election, they also begin to question the legitimacy of elected representatives and governments.
This weakens the representative foundation of the social contract.
If the people do not believe that their votes can influence political power, democratic participation begins to lose meaning.
The Judiciary and Constitutional Supremacy
The judiciary is expected to protect the constitution, ensure consistency in the application of law and prevent other institutions from exceeding their authority.
However, the article argues that constitutional supremacy has increasingly been affected by judicial activism.
This development became especially visible following the Lawyers’ Movement of 2007–2009.
The Expansion of Suo Motu Powers
Judges have used suo motu powers to take notice of matters without waiting for a formal petition.
Although such powers may be useful in exceptional cases, their frequent and unrestricted use can create concerns regarding institutional balance.
Critics argue that judicial authority should be exercised carefully and in accordance with clear constitutional limits.
Political Engineering
Supporters of a powerful judiciary argue that institutional independence is necessary to protect constitutional rights.
However, allegations of judicial involvement in political engineering have increased in recent years.
When judicial decisions are viewed as politically selective, public trust in both the courts and the constitution declines.
The Need for Legal Consistency
A standardized legal system exists to ensure that similar cases are treated according to consistent principles.
Citizens must believe that laws apply equally to everyone, regardless of political influence, wealth or social status.
When consistency is replaced by personal discretion or judicial heroism, the law itself may appear subordinate to individual judges.
People cannot be expected to respect constitutional rules when those rules appear to be repeatedly ignored within the institutions responsible for protecting them.
The Encroachment of Terms and Conditions
Considering the political, constitutional and economic difficulties experienced by Pakistan, the country’s future can appear uncertain.
For decades, both domestic and international observers have repeatedly described Pakistan as being at risk of becoming a “failed state.”
Such descriptions arise from several visible problems:
- Declining public confidence in government
- Weak democratic institutions
- Disputed elections
- Selective application of law
- Political polarization
- Ethnic and provincial divisions
- Absence of long-term policy solutions
The article questions how a state should be described when citizens lose faith in government, democracy becomes symbolic, laws are used as political weapons and political leaders repeatedly offer temporary slogans instead of lasting solutions.
Pakistan’s Continuing Survival
Despite repeated predictions of collapse, Pakistan has not become a completely failed state.
The government continues to function, elections continue to be held and the judiciary continues to operate.
Several explanations are commonly offered for this continued survival.
Some attribute it to Pakistan’s nuclear capability.
Others argue that international powers have an interest in preventing the country’s collapse.
Some consider Pakistan trapped in a permanent condition of political and institutional uncertainty.
Others question whether local historical, social and political conditions have made liberal democracy difficult to establish in its Western form.
Restoring Pakistan’s Social Contract
The central problem facing Pakistan is not simply the existence of political institutions, but the declining confidence citizens have in those institutions.
A social contract cannot remain effective when citizens believe that the state does not protect their rights, provide equal opportunities or respect their political choices.
Restoring this relationship requires:
- Respect for constitutional supremacy
- Free, fair and credible elections
- Equal application of the law
- Judicial restraint and independence
- Strong and accountable political institutions
- Economic policies that protect ordinary citizens
- Reduction of feudal and personality-based politics
- Greater national unity
The state must demonstrate that laws and institutions exist to serve the public rather than protect narrow political or institutional interests.
Citizens must also fulfil their responsibilities by respecting the law, participating in democratic processes and rejecting political violence, personality cults and ethnic division.
Conclusion
Social contract theory explains that political authority remains legitimate only when the state and its citizens fulfil their responsibilities towards one another.
Pakistan’s political paradox lies in the continued existence of democratic and constitutional institutions despite widespread public disillusionment with their performance.
The country has a constitution, elections, parliament and courts, yet citizens frequently question whether these institutions genuinely protect their rights or represent their political will.
Economic hardship, disputed elections, feudal influence, institutional conflict and inconsistent application of the law have weakened public trust.
Pakistan’s survival demonstrates institutional resilience, but survival alone cannot be considered political success.
A meaningful social contract requires more than the formal existence of state institutions. It requires justice, representation, economic security and constitutional accountability.
Unless the relationship between citizens and the state is rebuilt on these principles, political disillusionment will continue to deepen.