If independence means freedom, why can we not enjoy our freedom as individuals, like the bird freely flying in the sky? What binds us together as a nation? The term social contract naturally comes into mind, a word becoming as sacred as Independence itself, and any non-conformist interpretation seems to invite witch-hunting of blasphemy.

The contractarian view of societial affairs can perhaps be traced back to Plato's Republic but the modern articulations of 'social contract' are commonly associated with three philosophers: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1634-1704 and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, (1712-1778).

Hobbes who witnessed the England's Civil War believed that the state of nature in the absence of government is 'the war of all against war' where life is inevitably 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Therefore, individuals form society and cede the rights to a powerful sovereign (Leviathan) and a good government may solve the problems due to the negative nature of human beings.

Locke who wrote his treatise on civil government around the time of England's Glorious Revolution has a much more critical view of government. To him, a government enjoys unlimited power is bound to abuse the power. Hence, individuals enter a social contract for the formation of a government only to advance their common interest. The government should not violate the natural rights of people and could be modified or abolished by the people when necessary.

About seven decades later in France, Rousseau proposed the concept of 'general will' in "the social contract", where the rights are not fixed or 'natural' but rather corresponding with the responsibilities. More responsibilities come with more rights, and vice versa. The rights and responsibilities of individuals hence form the terms of the social contract, and the state the instrument created for its enforcement.

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau respectively represented or influenced the conservative, liberal and socialist political views. But the concepts of social contract they talked about are all about the vertical relations between individuals and the state, or by extension, any groups. The major difference between Hobbes and the other two is he did not stress the consent of the ruled.

Nevertheless, the contract is still not one on horizontal relations between equal or similar-standing parties. To give a commercial comparison, the social contract resembles the contract between the shareholders and the companies they collectively form, rather than that between partners in partnership.

It is important to note that the relationship between the ruler and the ruled is not one concern exclusively Western. Any society that fails to address the issue is condemned to tyranny, corruption and decline.

In the Malay world itself, there were the legendary pledges between Demang Lebar Daun and his king Sang Sapurba long before the Western philosophers, detailed in the Sejarah Melayu (1612). One may argue that Hang Jebat who cried "raja zalim raja disanggah" in Malacca was but a pioneering Lockean in action two centuries before the philosopher himself.