According to social contract theory, the people entrust their freedoms and rights to the state, but when the state violates them, the people have the right to abrogate the existing social contract and make a new one. Presidents should understand these principles of social contract and establish policies that guarantee the rights of the people.
The World as a Whole Understood by Social Contract Theory
The view that all human beings have natural rights, and that in the state of nature, these freedoms and rights are not guaranteed, so they form nations by contract and delegate their rights to the state is called social contract theory. According to this social contract theory, the state can legitimately exercise power to guarantee the freedoms and rights of its citizens.
However, when the state’s exercise of power clearly violates the freedoms and rights of the people, the people have a number of remedies available to them. People can abrogate the existing social contract with the state and create a new one to reestablish individual values. Examples include impeaching the president or revolution. Therefore, the president must use the power he or she receives from the people to put in place laws and institutional arrangements to guarantee the freedoms and rights of the people. Presidents must also always recognize that the people can replace their leaders if they fail to fulfill their contract with the state.
Some may argue that it is difficult for a president to determine what constitutes a violation of people’s freedoms and rights. However, the Constitution already defines the rights of the people. There are many different definitions, but given the recent events in South Korea, the following provisions should be the first place to start. According to Article 11(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 sex, religion, or social status. If the president intervenes in the legal and administrative processes of the people and creates inequality, this is grounds for the people to form a new social contract with the president.
Leaders of nations make policies for the people
In many countries, power is wielded by a small group of people, including large corporations, and the initial intention of the lawmakers is to create equality for all. However, once the laws are enacted, they tend to be promulgated in a way that favors the powerful few. As a result, people who violate the law are punished as criminals. In other words, the regime is determined by the interests of the powerful few. When people recognize these features, they become antagonistic toward state policies. This antipathy reduces the effectiveness of state policies when they are applied to the people. However, a regime that favors the interests of a powerful minority is a phenomenon that occurs in all countries. It is natural human self-interest for a strong minority group to prioritize its own interests. Therefore, the president should put in place institutional arrangements to minimize this unreasonable phenomenon in the country.
For example, suppose I become president. The staff around me and the experts in each department will be in charge of administrative tasks related to national policy. Policies and laws will be proposed to favor the wealthy and large corporations. Based on the existing history of South Korea’s development, it will be argued that the country can achieve the greatest results by focusing on the capabilities of a few large companies. In this situation, the president must understand the nature of minority interest groups to create institutional arrangements that favor the interests of the strong. And he or she should pursue policies that appear to favor the powerful in the short term, but favor the majority in the long term.
For example, earlier this year, the labor law was amended to extend the period for contract employees to become regular employees from two to four years. This labor law amendment seems to reduce the burden on companies to hire full-time employees by extending the duration of contract work. However, instead of increasing the duration, a provision should be added to ensure that the government systematically guarantees a higher rate of conversion to full-time employment. Also, the severance pay burden will double for companies, making it harder for them to lay off workers in large numbers.
National leaders who realize the value of communal good
First, let me clarify what I mean by the common good. For me, the good is the value of fairness. As much as we value our own values, we should value the values of others equally. However, this value of goodness is often opposed in communities. This is because people believe that their community is good and exhibit a collective egoistic attitude. This is exemplified in the past by invading and colonizing other countries for their own benefit. However, we must recognize that the lives of other communities are just as valuable as our own. It is very arrogant to assume that your country’s interests are the only good, and that they are an absolute value. Moreover, when acting as a community, it is easy to fall into this arrogance.
Therefore, the president must understand the egotistical nature of the community. And he should always be vigilant. We need to make sure that the national policies we are working on are not self-serving to our community. Of course, not all policies can always be equitable and realize the value of good, but at least we should constantly question and check the selfishness of the community’s policies.
Some might argue. A president’s fundamental role is to be a voice for his or her country. Of course, a president should speak out to represent his or her country’s interests in the world. Moreover, with globalization erasing borders, self-interested decisions are necessary to protect the country’s industries. I agree with these sentiments. However, the good of the community I mentioned earlier is self-interest in values related to human life.
For example, Europe is currently experiencing a conflict between countries over refugees. Some countries refuse to accept refugees, while others are in favor. If European countries refused to accept refugees, millions of lives would be at risk. However, accepting refugees unconditionally puts a strain on infrastructure and risks the possibility of terrorism. Therefore, national leaders must first recognize the value of human life and establish reasonable refugee acceptance criteria. Funds should be distributed among refugee-hosting countries, and background checks should be thorough to ensure safety from terrorism and crime. If a person has a violent temper or a criminal record, they should be excluded from accepting refugees.
