AP Syllabus focus: ‘Enlightenment political theory emphasized the social contract and helped redefine where governments get authority and how power should be limited.’
Enlightenment political thinkers challenged older claims that rulers governed by divine right or inherited status. By reimagining government as an agreement among people, they reshaped ideas of political legitimacy, rights, and constraints on state power.
Core Idea: Government as an Agreement
The social contract as a source of legitimacy
Social contract: A theory that political authority is legitimate only because individuals (explicitly or implicitly) agree to form a society and accept a government in exchange for order and protection.
Social contract arguments shifted attention from who a ruler was to what a government did and why people should obey it. Legitimacy increasingly depended on consent, public benefit, and the state’s fulfillment of agreed-upon obligations.
Redefining where authority comes from
Enlightenment approaches commonly asserted that:
Political power originates in the people, not in God’s exclusive appointment of a monarch.
Law should rest on reasoned principles rather than custom alone.
Government exists for public purposes (security, justice, welfare), not merely dynastic glory.
Major Enlightenment Models of Legitimate Government
Thomas Hobbes: security as the foundation
Unlock the rest of this chapter with a free account
Sign up for a free account to keep reading notes and practice questions.
FAQ
Tacit consent claimed that people consent indirectly by living within a state, using its courts, roads, markets, or protections.
Critics argued it is weak if exit is costly or impossible, raising doubts about whether it truly legitimises authority.
The general will is meant to reflect the common good, not just the preferences of the largest group.
A majority can pursue sectional interests; Rousseau’s framework implies legitimacy requires laws oriented to shared civic benefit, not merely numerical victory.
He argued that when one body controls lawmaking, enforcement, and judging, it can target opponents and remove legal protections.
Dividing functions creates institutional rivalry, making arbitrary rule harder and lawful procedure more likely.
It varied by thinker:
Hobbes leaned toward fear of conflict without authority.
Locke emphasised reason and rights but accepted insecurity without impartial law.
Rousseau criticised corrupting social institutions more than human nature itself.
A common critique is historical: most states were not founded by genuine agreement.
A philosophical critique is coercion: if laws are enforced regardless of consent, “contract” may describe an ideal standard rather than an actual source of rightful authority.
