Though nowadays we live in a highly developed society that is marked and supported by the high level of technological and economical development and the involved net of vivid international relationship and cooperation, it may be of great use if we choose to resort to the experience and the works of the outstanding philosophers to solve the present problems the humanity is frustrated by nowadays. In the course of human history, our society was constantly being torn apart by military conflicts and wars. Nowadays the military aggression and absence of stability in Afghanistan are in the intent focus of the people all around the world. The Civil War, which broke out in 1978, has been stifling and oppressing the exhausted country till now. What is more, thousands of people from outside have been involved in the military actions: the British, the military troops from the former USSA, the American pacificators, and the NATO troops. The long-term military tension has already caused enormous human losses and economic and cultural decay of the country. The Afghanistan issue is topical nowadays, especially for Americans, because “President Barack Obama has declared it [Afghanistan] to be the central front in the war on terrorism and has ordered a buildup of American troops to fight … insurgency led by the Taliban” (The New York Times par.2). Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, created his outstanding work “Leviathan”, a treatise about the nature of the state and its structure during the English Civil War of 1641-1651. This is why it may be useful to analyze Hobbes’ ideas of state power from the point of view of the contemporary situation in Afghanistan. If there were a possibility to ask Thomas Hobbes how to establish the state of peace in the Afghan society, he would advise to implement it based on social contract and the power of sovereign: “And he that carrieth this person is called sovereign, and said to have sovereign power; and every one besides, his subject” (Hobbes 119).
To compose the analysis of the current Afghan situation as it could be done by the great philosopher, it is necessary to make a short excursion to the history of Afghanistan during the period of the last three decades. Nowadays Afghanistan is known to be one of the poorest countries, the greater part of the population earns their living in the sphere of agriculture, and the country depends on foreign investments greatly. However, the situation in the country used to be relatively stable about three decades ago, before the invasion of the Soviet troops. The next period of Afghan history was marked by the strict tyrannical rule of the Taliban for seven years. The attack of the terrorists in New York and Washington on 11 September 2001 “thrust Afghanistan back on the world stage” (Johnson 1). The reasons for the discontent of the USA were repressive policies concerning the rights of women and the harboring of Osama bin Laden. Thus, it was only when “the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed into the dust that international attention really focused of Afghanistan” (Johnson 1). As the result of the actions of the United States and the rebel Afghan groups, the Taliban forces were forced out of the majority of Afghan cities. The government of Hamid Karzai was in the head of the state for seven years and President Karzai was a “White House favorite” (The New York Times par.23). However, the Taliban movement was not destroyed and its activity intensified soon. In August 2003 NATO “took command of the International Security Assistance Force” (The New York Times par.29). The recent event of high significance for Afghanistan is the presidential election that took place on 20 August 2009. On 7 November 2009, the runoff election between Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah will be held.
On getting acquainted with the present situation in Afghanistan, some commentaries that could have been made by Thomas Hobbes suggest themselves. Hobbes’ idea of the life of society without the control exercised on the part of the state partially resembles the situation of the Civil War during the period of 1979-1989. The situation may be characterized by Hobbes’ idea of the time of war “where every man is enemy to every man” and “the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes 86). The opposition of the struggling forces and the invasion of the outside forces (Soviet, British, etc.) was the result of the absence of a centralized strong government and the conflicts among the leading forces in the state. This situation was identified by Hobbes as “the state of nature” – “the war of all against all”. In this state of nature, “each of us has a right, or license, to everything in the world” (Hobbes vii). This is almost the exact description of the situation in Afghanistan with all its atrocities and violence aimed at human rights.
The attitude of the philosopher towards war presents great interest for the analysis. Thomas Hobbes suggests that the main function of the state is to protect the citizens from the “miserable condition of war”, which is always caused by “the natural passions of men” (Hobbes 116). However, the philosopher justifies the war started by the sovereign saying that it “is annexed to the sovereignty the right of making war and peace with other nations and Commonwealths” (Hobbes 124). Nevertheless, the amendment that military actions are allowed “for the public good” proves that the philosopher would disapprove of the actions of Taliban forces.
What is more, the main aim of the Taliban would be condemned by Hobbes. It is commonly known that the Taliban forces were struggling for the establishment of the radical Islamic state. The seven years of their rule were marked by religious oppression, destruction of the cultural monuments, and oppressive politics aimed at the female population of the country. In the first place, Hobbes defines the state as the body aimed at the protection “of the wealth and riches of all” including women. In the second place, he asserts that civil laws should prevail over religious laws. He says that “whereof there dependeth much upon supernatural revelations of the will of God” there is no possibility of building the healthy state (Hobbes 252). Though “Leviathan” elaborates on the relationship of the Christian religion and the state, it is evident Hobbes would disapprove of the radical Islamic republic.
The question of the political system should also be analyzed, as Hobbes gave a detailed description of the possible types of Commonwealth. He defined three types of Commonwealth based on “the difference of the sovereign”: monarchy, where “the representative is one man”; democracy, where “an assembly of all that will come together”; and aristocracy, where there is “an assembly of the part only” (Hobbes 128). As Hobbes stands for the monarch as the most suitable political system, he would criticize the present Islamic republic in Afghanistan because he is sure that power should be indivisible if men want to live in peace.
As for the sovereign himself, Hobbes would be disappointed by Hamid Karzai, whose government is blamed by the population for lack of economic progress and the spread of corruption among officials (The New York Times par. 24). The philosopher’s advice for Karzai would be to strengthen his authority and to gather power in his hands. By the way, Thomas Hobbes would disapprove of the elections because he stated that the next sovereign should be appointed by the previous monarch “by his express words and testament; or by other tacit signs sufficient” (Hobbes 135).
Concluding, it is possible to define the advice that the philosopher would give on studying the situation in Afghanistan. The image of the state suggested by the philosopher as the symbolic figure of Leviathan is his piece of advice to follow for the government of the country. The recipe for Afghanistan would be the creation of Leviathan in their country. Sovereignty should be treated as an “artificial soul”, the officials and state subdivisions should function harmoniously as “joints”, the “people’s safety” should become the main business of the state (Hobbes 1). Finally, the Afghans should realize that “civil war [is] death” (Hobbes 1).
Works Cited
“Afghanistan.” The New York Times. 2009. Web.
Johnson, Chris. Afghanistan. Eyrisham: Oxfam, 2004.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Forgotten Books, 2008.