Hobbes and Locke's Ideas on Sovereignty - Literature review Example

HOBBES AND LOCKE ON SOVEREIGNTY Social theories and political science offer a diverse range of issues of analysis thanks to the highly controversial concept of sovereignty. Contemporary times have seen the emergence of a discussion regarding international laws and political concepts. The discussion is that these laws and concepts should not be based on absolute and static truth, but rather they should be based on a framework that is agreeable by the subjects and can be used as their identity. Rothkopf (2008) a prominent international policy analyst defines sovereignty as the reflection of the prevailing believes and values of a society.1 Citizens are obliged to say okay to authority by their governments due to the fact that the alternative, which is living without some form of governance, would not be ideal. The foundation of a state is based on the relationship between governments and their respective citizens. Advocates of theories of social contract go about explaining the reasons as to why governments are formed by citizens as well as are compelled to abide by the law. The theories of social contract were heavily supported by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Despite this, the theories by the two just about totally opposed on the nature of power of the governing supreme, human nature as well as on the citizens’ rights against the supreme. Locke employed the social contract to support limited constitutionalism while Hobbes employed the same to defend absolutism. Hobbesian Sovereignty The Leviathan’s writing began shortly after the start of England’s civil war and was later published in 1651.2 The primary motives of Hobbes writing his theory of sovereignty are believed to be accounting for a stable political authority. In fact, Hobbes feels that it is the desire for stability that drives men into agreeing to enter into a commonwealth. According to Hobbes, a state of nature has “no propriety, no Dominion, no Mine and Thine distinct; but (only) that to be every man's that he can get; and for so long as he can keep it." He believed that the state of nature was characterized by a war between every man, and against every man.3 In addition, Hobbes argued that in a case of a natural state, "every man has a right to every thing; even to one another's body", describing the state of lives of men in this state as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"4 This is in line with his argument that though men are equal in their natural sense, continued acquisition of property results in bad self-preservation. The above mentioned condition has no room for living large, industry, or private ownership of property beyond what one can secure from others by force. When people begin hunting each other for property, a state of insecurity is born and eventually results in fear of death among the citizens. This fright, together with the hunger for large living is described by Hobbes as “the passions that incline men to peace.”5 It is this inclination towards peace that will drive men into commonwealth. According to Hobbes’ Leviathan, men willingly restrain themselves with foresight to getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war, which is necessarily consequent . . . to the natural passions of men, when there is no visible power to keep them in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants and observation of those laws of nature . . . .6 In a state of nature, Hobbes believes that men voluntarily make a “covenant of every man with every man”7 that establishes between them a state of peace that is preserved by them. The role of the sovereign as described by Hobbes is to serve as the common power holding the men in fear via the creation and enforcement of laws within the civil society. The presence of a common power is vital since men left on their own lack external judges in resolving matters; and based on the fact that they are naturally inclined to their own individual causes, it will be very difficult or completely impossible to abide by the set agreements and or laws. When men decide to commit themselves to this course, they “confer all their power and strength upon one man or upon one assembly of men (the sovereign),8 and that the sovereign may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will. . . ."9 As a result, the citizens grant the sovereign supreme power as well as become authors of the actions taken by the sovereign. In addition, the sovereign can not be accused by his subjects of any wrong doing, cannot be ousted, cannot receive any form of punishment from his subjects, acts as a judge over what is vital to ensure peace, determines when their states go to war etc. Furthermore, citizens are not entitled to private property. According to Hobbes, a man in a state of nature exists in a steady state of war.10 Similarly, a man without a common judge is believed to be in the same state thus necessitating the presence of such a powerful sovereign who ensures peace. Sovereignty and Locke’s Appeal to Heaven Similar to Hobbes, Locke believed that sovereignty was a process directed towards peace and it is initiated by coherent men who realized that living communally under some form of supreme ruler presented their self-preservation endeavors with the superb condition.11 In his Two Treatises of Government, Locke wrote that: The State of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possession …12 As opposed to Hobbes, he believes that the state of nature is in no way related to the state of war, stating that they “are as far distant as a state of peace, good-will, mutual assistance and preservation, and a state of enmity, malice, violence, and mutual destruction, are one from another." 13 Locke argues that man should not only preserve themselves, but also preserve the rest of mankind. He believes that self-preservation presents one with the right to punish those who disobey one’s natural rights of liberty, life and health. This law demanded that all men should not in any case and way injure the liberty, life, and or property of other men. In addition, every man would protect himself from violation of their natural rights by other men. According to Locke, this punishment is meant to repair the misbehaved individual as well as serve as an example or rather a warning to contain further infringements.14 Many may view these two theorists to present views that are absolutely opposing but in real sense the two have much in common. Just as Hobbes, Locke believes that “it is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases" due to the prevalence of self-interest and as a result “civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniencies of the state of nature."15 Consequently, each and every citizen will enter a compact “of agreeing together mutually to enter into one community and make one body politic… for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties."16 The above mentioned compact results in the formation of a civil society. He states that: Those who are united into one body, and have established laws and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them and punish offenders are in civil society with one another.17 In contrary to Hobbes, Locke is of the belief that the state of nature has room for additional agreements that includes the extremes of advocating for private property as well as the ability for the creation of money. Locke goes further to explain what happens in the absence of an earthly judge, citing appealing to God in heaven as the only option in resolving the prevailing situation.18 Compare and Contrast Both theorists believed that in a state of nature people would come together and form a state for their own protection. Moving on from this point, the two theories have various differences. The two begin their differences from their hypotheses regarding the formulation of states. According to Locke, people in a state of nature were moral beings who later formed a state for the protection of their natural rights to liberty, life and property as well as arbitrate over disputes that may arise between them. On the other hand, Hobbes argued that a state was formed by people with hardnosed self interests of protecting themselves from the harm of others. Another point of contention between these two theorists is their view of the nature of government. Hobbes’ theory was in support of a sovereign having absolute and complete power. This places the sovereign in a position to be in total control of the state and its citizens. On the other hand, Locke’s argument is that the legislative has supreme power in every state but it holds no absolute adjudication power over the liberty, lives and property of the citizens. Hobbes was a pessimist in his belief that men needed a common power so as to protect the citizens of the state from harming each other as well as from foreign powers. However, Locke is of the optimistic view that those in a state of nature would develop stronger moral limits enabling them to relatively live in harmony in the absence of a common power. Locke argues that a sovereign governs on behalf of the people and as such these people have a right to modify or dissolve the government whenever there is a breach of any preset trust. This is similar to a contemporary democratic (constitutional and responsible) form of governance but not close to Hobbes argument where he believes that the people have no choice against the sovereign, suggesting some form of dictatorship governance. According to Hobbes, those who wished for the protection of the sovereign must obey its laws.19 Both Locke and Hobbes developed theories that describe the relationship between citizens and their sovereign. Hobbes built his theory on a cynical underpinning with major focus on the bad trends of the citizens. On the contrary, Locke is a little bit over-optimistic in assuming that men will obey the moral limits of nature. However, the two theories have hugely contributed to the development of the contemporary constitutional and responsible governments. Bibliography Bateman, C.G. Nicaea and Sovereignty. Constantine's Council as an Important Crossroad in the Development of European State Sovereignty. University of British Columbia, 2011. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Ed. by Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994. Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration. Ed. by Ian Shapiro. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Read More