In the lawless world of the ancients the need for a great leader was never in question. In a time when tribes and small nations regularly go to war there was a clamor for a warrior-king. And the ancients find stability in monarchy. In order to perpetuate power and of course security and stability, ancient kings regarded themselves as children of the divine and therefore secure the right to rule as long as they produce a male heir. In the Age of Enlightenment, the people – fed up with the abuse of authority – began to question the divine right of rulers to own land, together with all that it contains including people. But in recent times, terrorism, political and economic instability prompted many to revisit two great schools of thought championed by two of the greatest political thinkers in modern history – John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Locke believes that men are both equal and free and not fully subjected to a monarch while Hobbes believes in absolutism for the sake of peace, security, and progress.
This paper will take a closer look at John Locke’s ideas as can be gleaned from the study of his major work the Two Treatises of Government. Of particular interest in this study is Locke’s view on what is natural law and natural rights. This will be compared to Hobbes conflicting view as understood from studying his masterpiece the Leviathan. Both theories will be applied using the leadership example of Frederick the Great and of course by using the same to understand the 21st century’s political landscape.
Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes was born a few decades before John Locke and he was born into a European continent where nations are constantly at war. His particular experience with the English Civil War and its accompanying hardships led him to the conclusion that, “There must be some coercive power to compel men equally to the performance of their covenants, by the terror of some punishment, greater than the benefit they expect by the breach of their covenant.”
Sharon Lloyd clarified Hobbes’ point of view by explaining that, “Because virtually any government would be better than a civil war, people ought to submit themselves to an absolute political authority. Continued stability will require that they also refrain from the sorts of actions that might undermine such a regime… Hobbes aimed to demonstrate the reciprocal relationship between political obedience and peace.” Hobbes believes in absolutism.
Locke
During the time of Locke, the Western world was undergoing a revolution of ideas. The intellectuals of his time steeled themselves to go against established ideas about the universe, human existence, and the material world they live in. Everyone was hyper critical of dogmas and will not accept information handed down from previous generations of policy makers and religious institutions. Everything must be tested and nothing was spared including the idea on how men must be governed.
John Locke was a product of his surrounding and there is no doubt that he was influenced by what was going on around him. Still, his genius could not be denied because he was one of the few who were able to challenge the status quo. In his enlightened mind it is not right to give kings absolute authority because it is against human nature to do so. He was one of the first to propose that each individual has inalienable rights such as life, liberty, health, and property. This belief in human rights made it impossible to accept absolutism as a form of government.
Origins of State
Both Locke and Hobbes had the same take-off point in developing their ideas of the State and from there went on to describe the ideal form of government. Both writers believe that there is such a thing as a natural state from which all beings came forth. In this natural state man is free to do whatever he wants to do for he is blessed with specific rights. Hobbes said that man has the right to self-preservation. Although Locke agrees with Hobbes on this point, Locke added another dimension and said that man also has the right to liberty, health and property.
These two titans of political theory also agree on one thing that man although by nature free, needs to be governed by a just ruler. Both philosophers went on to explain that security, stability, and peace can only be achieved if man will surrender his rights to an institution who will gather all the collective rights of all people and create a system that is beneficial for all. From hereon, their ideas began to diverge. Hobbes, well experienced in the failures of government made the assertion that it is only when man fully surrenders his rights and obey without question rulers above him can he experience the full benefits of good governance and at the same time ensure the stability of that particular government.
Locke on the other hand, well aware of the fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely fears the idea of an absolute government able to do as it pleases. It is at this point that one can see the wisdom of Locke in seeing the wider implication of absolutism. Locke was able to argue effectively that absolute power does not simply guarantee peace but it can easily move to another direction which is corruption. And when corruption sets within a government given absolute powers, the subjects forces themselves in a situation where they will run out of options, they cannot improve their circumstances.
On the other hand Hobbes will ague that there is no sure assurance that a rebellion or an uprising initiated to remove a corrupt leader does not always guarantee that the new leader is not as corrupt as the former. At the same time there is danger that an uprising will naturally lead to peace knowing fully well that it can go on forever, a nation suffering another prolonged state of Civil War. There is no need to elaborate on this as one can see the problems faced by some African states, small nations torn by civil war and its inhabitants have forgotten what peace feels like because the recent conflict has been going on for more than a decade.
Enlightened Absolutism
An application of the ideas developed by Locke and Hobbes was perfectly demonstrated in the life of enlightened monarchs. The best example can be found in the reign of Frederick the Great. Eckhart Hellmuth explained why Prussia’s 18th century ruler could be used as the model for enlightened absolutism, and he wrote, “For Prussia was a state… in which autocratic rule was exercised not for its own sake, but in the interests of the general good, and in which an efficient bureaucracy was able to set out on the path leading to the ‘modern state’ of the nineteenth century without being embroiled in revolutionary turbulence, like France.” In Frederick the Great’s Prussia, there was a successful co-mingling of both Locke and Hobbes’ theories.
In his writings Frederick the Great was leaning towards Hobbes’ absolutism and this is understandable because he is a monarch. He also wrote that the reign of kings is not based on divine right of kings but on a contract. In this contract, the people unconditionally surrender their rights but this time with a twist – the monarch is the servant of the state. It was still far from the ideal of Locke where the people had the right to build another government from the ashes of the corrupt one destroyed earlier, but this was a great step forward.
Conclusion
Hobbes’ view is problematic in the sense that it limits man’s ability to some kind of an animal unable to make wise decisions. For Hobbes it is simply a choice between being ruled absolutely or chaos. The progress achieved by democratic societies in the 21st century is a major rebuttal to his theory. It has been demonstrated that man by nature is not a wild animal incapable of making right choices. There is a way for men of reason to come together and agree on a form of government where they could surrender their rights and yet still have the prerogative to change their government if it will ever become abusive and despotic.
Locke’s view is more palatable especially using today’s standards and modern view of the world. But when Locke was writing his opus, the whole of Europe knew no other form of government except a monarchical system where succession of absolute leadership is assured by the divine right of kings. In a transition towards Locke’s vision of a better future, there were some European rulers who experimented on a “compromise” between the two theories. An excellent example is the one modeled by Frederick the Great and probably never was there a kingdom that would have made Hobbes proud and Locke hopeful of the future.
Bibliography
Helmuth, Eckhart. “Enlightenment and Government.” In The Enlightenment World, edited by M. Fitzpatrick, C. Knellwolf, I. McCalman, 442-446. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Knutsen, Torbjorn. A History of International Relations Theory. 2nd ed. New York: Manchester University Press, 1997.
Lloyd, Sharon. (2002). “Hobbes’ Moral and Political Philosophy” Stanford Encyclopedia Philosophy. Web.
USHistory.org “The Declaration of Independence: The Will Want and Hopes of the People”. Web.
Thomas, D. L. Locke on Government. New York: Routledge, 1995.
Tuckness, Alex. (2005). “Locke’s Political Philosophy”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.
Uzgalis, William. “John Locke”, Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.