Amongst the great works on political philosophy, ‘The Leviathan’ by Thomas Hobbes holds an eminent place and is a subject of much debate even today. Hobbes, through his political construct of ‘the Sovereign’ laid the foundations for the development of modern Western political and legal structures. It must be remembered that in 1651A.D, when Hobbes wrote his magnum opus, Europe had just come out the dark ages and the age of enlightenment with its emphasis on scientific reason had just begun. Society had begun questioning the religious dogmas and the divine right of kings to rule leading to the ruinous English Civil war. In those tumultuous times, Hobbes sought to construct a political philosophy based on scientific empiricism which could help resolve the dilemmas faced by the European society in those times. This essay aims to explain the central tenets of Hobbesian political philosophy, human nature and its relation to governance.
Hobbes was greatly influenced by the science of Geometry and he strove to explain the nature of man and issues of governance in an analytical sequential manner. To do that Hobbes commences his argument with an explanation of the Human nature. According to Professor Danny O’Rourke, Hobbes stated that “we must first resolve society into its component elements and the individual into their essential make up in order to arrive at a “state of nature” (Rourke). The state of nature is what the individual is taken to really be: outside of the confusing conditions they face in actual social history. Taking this state of nature as our starting point, we can the think of society as something essentially “artificial”. The essential character of human will is disposed to ‘predominate’ others in deadly opposition which if left in a natural state could lead to death. Thus according to Hobbes the natural state of human nature is war wherein:
“In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.
It is for this reason that man chooses to live in civil societies so that he can escape the possibility of violent death. Thus man willingly gives up his natural state, the right to kill each other and agrees to live in a civil society for his safety. According to Hobbes, social peace is possible because all people agree that it is good and are rational enough to cooperate. However, this state of peace in society cannot last because of differing perceptions of good and evil and strife is sure to follow. Hence, the society needs a governing authority that Hobbes calls ‘the Sovereign’.
The Sovereign is an artificial person responsible for public welfare and social order. The Sovereign could be a person, a legislature or a body of citizenry. Hobbes however, preferred that the Sovereign should be the Monarch, as according to him, more the number of leaders as the ‘sovereign’, greater was the chance of dissonance. Hobbes held that for a proper functioning society, the authority of the Sovereign had to be absolute and supreme and nobody had the right to challenge it. The Sovereign is supposed to have the right knowledge, wisdom and conduct and thus was above reproach. When men voluntarily agree to be ruled by a man, or a group of men in exchange of social peace and safety, then a political commonwealth is supposed to have been established. Such a Sovereign once ‘authorized’ has the right “to present the person of them all” (Hobbes 152), i.e. represent the subjects. The Sovereign has thereon the right to rule as he deemed fit. This idea of ‘representation’ establishes the relationship between the Sovereign and the subjects. Absolute power of the Sovereign is a prerequisite as anything less would lead to challenges to his authority and ultimately lead to strife. Hobbes however, holds that beyond upholding law and order for a peaceful society, the Sovereign has no ulterior motive for absolute control. According to Hobbes, a strong state is only possible if the state has a strong economy. “If sovereignty is rational, it would leave great amount of freedom to its creator who must have created in interest of the community this freedom; the freedom to participate in the free market” (Rourke). As per Hobbes three forms of governance are possible “When the representative is one man, then is the Commonwealth a monarchy; when an assembly of all that will come together, then it is a democracy, or popular Commonwealth; when an assembly of a part only, then it is called an aristocracy” (Hobbes, p. 163).
Hobbes empiricism has often been cited as the precursors for modern democratic thought. According to Runciman, “Hobbes used the idea of representation to ground a secular conception of political authority… Hobbes’s thought is foundational for modern theories of representative government” (1). Others however, decry Hobbes excessive emphasis on absolute authority of the Sovereign. According to the detractors, Hobbes formulations encourage authoritarianism and are more attuned to extreme forms of governments like Fascism. Hobbes collective vision of society consisting of a body of the sovereign is also seen as the source of inspiration for socialism. This Hobbes does by denouncing the divine right of kings and states that all humans are naturally equal.
One of the most glaring weaknesses in Hobbes’ construct of the Sovereign is the assumption that the Sovereign would be knowledgeable and competent in maintaining law and order. The lacuna in Hobbes reasoning stems from the fact that there “seems to be no mechanism for dealing with a Sovereign who is incompetent or unwilling to discharge his duties to his subjects: to preserve order and peace” (Clark 2). The limits to the power of the Sovereign it seems reside only in the realms of punishments. Hobbes holds that no one can be put to death but can be sentenced to “corporal, or pecuniary, or ignominy, or imprisonment, or exile, or mixed of these” (Hobbes 279) punishments. Thus Hobbes can be said to be an early proponent for the abolishment of the death penalty. Hobbes also held the primacy of coercion as a tool necessary for governance. Hobbes however, fails to make a logical conclusion that once a society becomes mature, its citizens virtuous enough, it may not require coercion to uphold the rule of law. Hobbes failure to make a clear distinction between civil laws and moral laws and civil and moral obligations are perhaps the biggest flaws in practical application of Hobbesian philosophy in the modern era. Nonetheless, Hobbes succeeded in initiating a transformational process in the development of modern political philosophy.
Works Cited
- Clark, Antoine. “Hobbes’s Theory of Human Nature: A Warning to Libertarians.” 1995. Libertarian Alliance.
- Hobbes, Thomas. “The Leviathan.” 1651. University of Oregon.
- Rourke, Danny O. Lecture on Philospohy of Thomas Hobbes. 2008.
- Runciman, David. “Hobbes’s Theory Of Representation: Anti-democratic or Proto-democratic?” 2006. Web.