hroughout Leviathan, Hobbes makes it clear that an absolute sovereign is necessary in order to ensure order and the protection of citizens. In order to justify the existence of an absolute sovereign he presents his view of the state of nature. In Chapter XIII, for example, he provides a number of consecutive and philosophically consistent arguments to show that, without an absolute sovereign, there would be a war of everyone against everyone. He therefore argues that, in order to avoid such an eventuality, subjects must covenant together to renounce their rights to everything and instead obey an absolute sovereign (Hobbes 1651). In Hobbes’ view, the sovereign must be ‘absolute’, which contrasts to a number of other social contrast theorists. By ‘absolute’, Hobbes means that the sovereign must be obeyed in virtually all circumstances, regardless of whether the subjects disagree with the decisions of the sovereign. This, therefore, contrasts to the views of other social contract theorists such as Locke, who argue that the people have the right to change the government if they so wish. Despite his arguments regarding the state of nature being intellectually consistent, Hobbes’ proposal of an absolute sovereign as the solution to the state of nature is problematic. If human nature is fundamentally flawed as Hobbes seems to suggest, for example, is it not intellectually consistent to argue that an absolute sovereign would abuse its power, unless restrained by its subjects (Khzmalyan 2016)? This essay will therefore argue that Hobbes successfully demonstrates that a sovereign is necessary in order to avoid the harsh reality of the state of nature, but that the sovereign should never be ‘absolute’ and that citizens should always have the power to remove the sovereign.
Hobbes’ justification for an absolute sovereign in Leviathan is undoubtedly dependent on his conception of the state of nature, which seeks to show why, without a sovereign, there would be a war of “every man against every man” (Hobbes 1651 p188). As noted by Lloyd and Sreedhar (2018), Hobbes’ conception of the state of nature is constructed from “a number of individually plausible empirical and normative assumptions”. It is empirically true, for example, that people are sufficiently equal in their physical strength, insofar as nobody can reasonably expect to dominate everyone else within the state of nature and never be vulnerable to attack themselves. Additionally, the jump from equality to ‘diffidence’ in Hobbes’ conception of the state of nature in Chapter XIII is also intellectually consistent. If one assumes, for example, that there is a finite amount of resources that all men require in order to survive and that no man can dominate the others, then it is likely that men would, at best, be mistrustful of each and, at worst, come into conflict with each other, as there would be no sovereign to enforce rules, laws and agreements. Evidently, it is true that some men might seek to cooperate with each other, however there would be nothing to stop others from stealing and breaking contracts, which would inevitably lead to a climate of mistrust or ‘diffidence’.
Moreover, Hobbes’ thesis regarding the violent reality of the state of nature is supported by empirical evidence. There is, for example, a far higher rate of conflicts between sovereign states in the international sphere, which lacks an overarching sovereign or world government, than in the domestic sphere of a sovereign state, where power is centralised. Indeed, Hobbes’ work, and specifically his reasoning of wars between sovereign states due to their “Independency” in Chapter XIII, has contributed significantly to the realist tradition within international relations, which seeks to highlight the inevitably conflictual nature of the anarchical international system (Williams 1996 p213) . Following on from this, Hobbes makes the normative claim that, in order to avoid the state of nature where the life of man is “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes 1651 p186), we need to have a powerful sovereign, as this is the only way of enforcing laws, rules and contracts and preventing ‘diffidence’. Hobbes uses empirical evidence to once again support the existence of a powerful sovereign. He argues, for example, that we can see how not having a sovereign is undesirable through the way in which countries with a powerful sovereign have degenerated into “civill Warre”(Hobbes 1651 p187), once the sovereign is removed. One modern example of this would be the Syrian Civil War, where the attempted uprising has essentially lead to a war between multiple groups (CNN 2018).
Through his analysis of the state of nature, therefore, Hobbes successfully argues that a sovereign is necessary in order to maintain peace and enforce laws and contracts. The problem with his argument, however, is his assertion that the sovereign must be ‘absolute’, which is problematic in several ways. As Khzmalyan (2016) argues, for example, surely, given Hobbes’ negative view of human nature, the sovereign would most likely be selfish and would therefore abuse its power at the expense of its subjects. This argument is especially strong when Hobbes’ analysis of conflict is considered. Hobbes claims, for example, that one of the primary causes of conflict between men is men seeking “glory” or “reputation” (Hobbes 1651 p185). Surely, therefore, this same flaw in human nature would apply to an unrestricted, ‘absolute’ sovereign and would therefore lead to tyrannical government, unless citizens have the power to change to change the form of government, which Hobbes expressly forbids in Chapter XVIII? As Khzmalyan (2016) points out, this would potentially be more of a danger to citizens than the state of nature itself.
Moreover, the fact that Hobbes suggests that the sovereign should preferably be just one person in Chapter XIX is especially problematic. He argues that monarchy is preferable to an assembly for a variety of reasons, one of which being that a monarch “cannot disagree with himselfe, out of envy, or interest; but an Assembly may” (Hobbes 1651 p243). Evidently, this argument is deeply flawed. Whilst it is true that an absolute sovereign consisting of one person could not disagree with themselves, this would, in fact, be more likely to lead to tyranny, than if the sovereign were made up of multiple people, if we accept Hobbes’ assumptions regarding human nature. If we assume, for example, that, unless restrained by a sovereign, human nature is inevitably conflictual due to men seeking glory or reputation, then surely an absolute sovereign consisting of one person would inevitably be tyrannical, as it would be subject to no restraint. Indeed, there is no shortage of historical evidence, especially since Hobbes’ death, that demonstrates how unrestricted, ‘absolute’ sovereigns consisting of just one person have routinely been tyrannical. If we take a closer look at the earlier example of the Syrian Civil War, for example, whilst it is true that the lack of a controlling sovereign has lead to a war between multiple groups, it is also true that the alternative is an unchecked tyrant in Bashar al-Assad who has routinely used chemical weapons in order to suppress his own people (Independent 2018). In addition to this, Hobbes argues that a sovereign consisting of one person would be unlikely to be tyrannical, due to the fact that the riches and power of a monarch are supposedly dependent on its subjects being rich and therefore the sovereign would not suppress its people. This assumption is equally problematic, as it fails to take into account how an absolute sovereign could potentially construct a regime whereby its subjects are exploited and abused, in order to strengthen the power and agenda of the sovereign. The use of labour camps by both Hitler and Stalin are two key examples of this occurring, which undermines Hobbes’ argument that the wealth of a dictator depends on its subjects being wealthy. It is clear to see, therefore, that Hobbes’ arguments in favour of absolute sovereigns are fatally flawed, as they fail to provide any means of preventing tyranny.
Ultimately, it is clear that Hobbes is successful in demonstrating that a sovereign is necessary, in order to prevent the violence that he depicts in the state of nature. He correctly identifies in Chapter XIII of Leviathan that a sovereign is necessary to ensure laws and contracts between subjects. In the absence of such a sovereign, people would inevitably come into conflict with each other over resources, as there would be nothing to bind people into keeping their contracts with each other. In spite of this, however, he fails to demonstrate that an ‘absolute’ sovereign is the solution. He fails to theorise, for example, how, in accordance with his negative view of human nature, an unrestrained, absolute sovereign would most likely abuse its power and exploit its citizens, in order to pursue its own agenda. As Khzmalyan (2016) points out, this could potentially lead to a more violent reality than the state of nature. In light of this, the sovereign should always be restrained and the subjects should always have the power to remove the sovereign, as this would be more likely to ensure that the sovereign acts in the interests of its subjects.