Hobbes and Rousseau on the Creation of Political Authority - Essay Example

Hobbes and Rousseau on the creation of political ity The social contract theory is a common concept used in many different fields such as philosophy, political science, economics and sociology. It basically suggests that there is a contract which exists between the state and the individuals who are part of the state regarding their individual rights and privileges which creates political authority for those who are to act as governors or administrators for a society. A social contract can also exist between a company/organization and its members or a social group and the participants of the group. The idea of a social contract has been developed and expanded greatly by philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes amongst many others (Wikipedia, 2006). However, the Ideas of Hobbes and Rousseau are important for all students of political science, history, sociology and even literature because their ideas have formed the basis of almost all modern western democracies. Hobbes was the earlier of the two philosophers and outlined his ideas concerning a social contract in his magnum opus titled Leviathan. Hobbes suggests that the natural inclination of mankind breaks men into strong and weak. The strength of a strong man may come from his physical abilities or his mental prowess but in either case, he has an advantage over the weak. However, this advantage to the strong is not so great that they stop fearing death and if a person is faced with death s/he has to avoid it by whatever means possible (Williams, 2006). In fact, this threat of death can come from a combined force of weaker individuals as well therefore the natural world creates a constant struggle and war between all individuals. Wherever such a state exists life would be brutal, hard and very harsh. Of course, the clear situation where such a state exists is the situation of war where every man has to fend for himself. Hobbes suggests that all men have a desire to disengage from war if they have to face their own deaths. Therefore, it is the fear of death which leads human beings to form civil societies that function under some form of authority (Williams, 2006). This authority takes away some of the freedoms enjoyed by man in his natural state and in turn gives men a state of internal peace within the society and protection if another groups attacks the same society. To function as an accepted power, the authority must be a ‘Leviathan’ which represents absolute power within that group. Additionally, the authority needs to be strong in order to wage war and defend the people if necessary from outside aggression (Williams, 2006). Fundamentally, Hobbes would function very well as a citizen if he gave up a few of his naturally granted freedoms in exchange for security, peace and protection from outside influences. It must be noted that Hobbes comes across as a monarchist and supports having a single figure to represent a society much as a popular dictator or a benevolent king would be expected to. Additionally, the book itself was written during a period of great turmoil in England when the English Civil War was taking place and Hobbes does his best to convince the readers that a central authority figure is the best way to manage a society. Abuse of power by the authority figure can be accepted as a price for peace and freedom and any checks or balances on such a figure would only create a hindrance (Williams, 2006). It must be noted that the philosophies of both the thinkers are in line with the thoughts of their time since Hobbes was living at the end of the late Middle Ages which had shown the world the coming of the renaissance and the new ideas associated with thinking about government which could be beneficial for the people in social terms rather than simply a government which taxed individuals and governed with guidance that called for following few laws other than the Magna Carta. Such changes could not come over night and people were still thought to require an iron hand for government in most situations. Therefore, a Leviathan must be given complete control over all branches of government including civil authority, military control, and the judiciary. Additionally, the king of the realm should also be allowed to give his decrees on matters of faith since a lack of union in matters of faith can also lead to discord and war (Williams, 2006). In fact, this leads to the central difference between the ideas of Hobbes and Rousseau since Rousseau dose not agree to give so much power to the ruler of any state. Rousseau believes that a ruler or a government must establish its own legitimacy before it seeks the consent of the governed to take away certain rights. While Hobbes comes across as a believer in the force of authority and the strength of a central figure even as per the title of his work, Leviathan, Rousseau gives a more positive view of government. For example, he does not suggest that governments have to be created by force but rather that legitimate governmental authorities can only be established when the people of a state agree to be governed by a particular person (Delaney, 2006). This is certainly a more enlightened view as compared to the view taken by Hobbes but Rousseau is the champion of the revolutionary thought which seeks to make governments show why they are fit to rule the people. On the other hand, Hobbes takes the right of kings and other strong men as a divine intervention towards kingship. Rousseau is certainly a democratic individual at heart who seeks the reason why one person’s orders have to be followed by many others. This is the essence and root of the democratic ideal that government has to be for the people, of the people and by the people. According to Rousseau, wherever such governments exist, the rule of law prevails and justice can be distributed to everyone. Of course even a kingship or a monarchy can perform these functions therefore it is possible for the subjects to be ruled by a single person rather than a democratically elected governmental body. However, even a king must accept the rule of law and behave in a manner acceptable to the people of he can be removed from power by force (Delaney, 2006). The French revolution and the events which followed in terms of revolutions against kings in the years during and after the age of enlightenment certainly showed that governments had to prove them self legitimate to the people. This legitimacy founds the basis of the social contract for Rousseau. As defined and discussed by Rousseau, a legitimate king, government or any other authority remains legitimate as long as it accepts the people’s rights to life, liberty, health, and the ownership of property. Additionally, it must protect the subjects from others who would seek to take away life, liberty or any other basic rights given to the people (Delaney, 2006). On the other hand, an illegitimate government would simply not be able to protect the citizens or refuse to protect them at all or even engage in the violation of those rights. In many ways the social contract limits how the governments can act to prevent dissent from within but in many cases, weak, oppressive or even illegitimate governments can invite dissent or even a revolution. Dealing with such governments or kings is approached differently by both Hobbes and Rousseau since Hobbes accepts these trespasses as a side effect of the protection given by the Leviathan to the majority of the citizens. If a few citizens are hurt by the liberties taken by the Leviathan then they simply have to either leave the area or agree to live under the rule of the law as best as they can. On the other hand, Rousseau’s answer to bad government is simple, Bad government is illegitimate government and rebellion against an illegitimate government is perfectly justifiable (Delaney, 2006). In effect, a cruel despotic ruler who is so readily accepted by individuals like Hobbes would be sent quickly to the guillotine by Rousseau. Again, it must be noted that Rousseau was living in a time where things such as regicide and overthrowing an established system had to be justified by those who supported the rebellion. Events such as a the French revolution and the American revolution were both cases in which legitimate governmental authority was killed off not with political means but by violent clash between the governed and the governors. Rousseau’s ideas as well as some of those presented by Hobbes have regularly featured as the primary motive behind rebellions and revolutions across the world. Perhaps the most important revolution where a comparison of Hobbes and Rousseau can be made is the American Revolution. No doubt that the Founding Fathers of America were greatly impressed by the ideas of Rousseau and understood that the legitimacy of King George could be very easily questioned since he had not taken the necessary/required steps to protect the lives, liberty or the property of his American subjects. Of course this lack of action on the part of King George was considered be enough to overthrow his power by those who would agree with a philosopher like Rousseau but others who hold Hobbes closer to their heart would consider such rebellion to be illegal. In conclusion, the ideas of Hobbes and Rousseau are both valuable since Hobbes lays down the foundations of why governments are necessary and how a government should be established to protect the governed. Rousseau agrees with most of Hobbes ideas but expands the argument concerning the social contract by suggesting that governments have to be legitimate in order to be accepted as rightful authorities. Between the two it seems that Rousseau is the historical winner since more states moved towards establishing democracies than kingdoms over the past years but it seems like Hobbes might be the final winner since many democratically elected officials today act as nothing more than kings. I believe that a revolution is neither legal nor is it illegal but it simply has to be popular. A popular revolution will soon be important enough and accepted enough to become legal and anyone who objects to its legality will automatically become a heretic for the revolutionary. On the other hand, a failed or an unpopular revolution will not amount to anything since the popular and strong Leviathan can simply swallow up those who seek to overthrow the monster. In both situations, it is not the philosophy which becomes important but the idea of how politically successful the actions of the revolutionaries are in relation to those of the established government. Works Cited Wikipedia (2006). Social Contract. [Online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract Williams, G. (2006). Thomas Hobbes. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [Online] Available at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hobmoral.htm Delaney, J. (2006). Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [Online] Available at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rousseau.htm Read More