A CRITIQUE OF HOBBES, LOCKE, AND ROUSSEAU’S SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORIES AND THE LEGITIMACY OF THE MODERN STATE

Abstract

This article is a theoretical academic study that aims to analyze and critically examine the concept of state legitimacy within the framework of social contract theory as developed by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The analysis focuses on three key dimensions: assumptions about human nature, forms of sovereignty, and the status of citizens as providers of political consent. The article employs conceptual analysis and theoretical comparison to explore both the shared foundations and the differences among these thinkers as a basis for explaining the legitimacy of the modern state. The findings indicate that, despite important differences, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau share a common assumption that links the legitimacy of political authority to the consent of individuals as contracting parties. However, when applied to the context of the modern state where power operates through institutions, public policy, and complex administrative processes this framework proves insufficient in fully explaining the legitimacy of political authority. The critique developed in this article centers on three main issues: the problem of hypothetical consent that lacks procedural manifestation, structural inequalities that render contracting parties unequal in practice, and the limitations of sovereignty-based models in explaining institutional forms of power in contemporary states. In response, the article proposes a shift in evaluating legitimacy from the origin of authority toward the quality of political processes and institutional structures, emphasizing participation, transparency, and the capacity of the state to reduce structural inequalities. This perspective allows for a more grounded understanding of legitimacy in relation to the dynamics of contemporary society.