A Sea Monster over Democracy : Thomas Hobbes
In the previous blog post, we briefly discussed the opinions of famous ancient Athenians on Democracy. We witnessed their skepticism and their doubts, which bore out of their solid moral foundations. It was only 2000 years later that resounding ideas of state again emerged, and this time it was from England, where trouble was brewing.
The English weren't always sipping tea and sinking into their armchairs in vain colonial pride. In fact, tea was only made popular by the Catherine of Braganza, the wife of Charles II who ruled England during the restoration period, beginning from 1660. However, during the two decades preceding this, the English Civil War(or the war of the three kingdoms) brought the island to its knees, as it engulfed the nation in a spate of massacre and bloodshed, that took over 200,000 lives.
It was in these troubled times that Thomas Hobbes, the English philosopher, published his political treatises, Leviathan and De Cive. We shall briefly discuss his ideas of state before understanding it's implications for the idea of democracy.
State of Nature
Hobbes and subsequent thinkers like Locke and Rousseau were different from erstwhile Plato and Aristotle in an important sense. The Greeks believed that the individual couldn't be separated from the society. That if the individual was 'a hand' , then the society was the body. So inseparable and meaningless was the individual outside society. Hence, while all these philosophers kept the individual and his good at the heart of their political thought, the Greeks began thinking about the good of the individual only as a part of the society.
Hobbes meanwhile thought differently. Hobbes understood that political society was a human construct. He then tried to address questions like, how did this institution even come to exist, or why does it exist, or what purpose does the political society serve? Hobbes, for the genius that he was, conceived of a pre-political society called state of nature, where people hadn't yet thought of having a kind of a chief. It was exactly, a state of nature, where no man-made institutions existed. Now Hobbes doesn't care much if it actually ever existed, but what he cares for is the insight that such a thought experiment lends. This is a lot like how economists imagine a time when people used barter exchange instead of currency, a time of which there is scant historical evidence, but which nonetheless, helps us understand the usefulness of money.
Social Contract
Now Hobbes described this state of nature in the De Cive as "is nothing but a meere warre of all again all; and in that warre all men have equal rights unto all things". In the Leviathan, he describes the condition of man in this nature as "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short". It is evident that during Hobbes time, when the civil war had ensued, a situation akin to the state of nature had come to exist, where there was no effective political authority and every one was free equally to loot, plunder and kill.
Now according to Hobbes, everyone would want to get out of this condition of savagery and agree to come together and sign a covenant, wherein everyone is to protect the other. This covenant is called a social contract , which entails everyone's protection by everyone. Voila! Hence comes an end to the state of savagery? Hobbes could also see through the apparent simplicity of the solution. His suspicions were right when he said in the Leviation that "the bonds of words are too weak to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger, and other Passions,without the feare of some coërcive Power".
A typical prisoner's dilemma problem, in economic parlance.
Hence, Hobbes suggests the need for the set up of a ruler or a council whose powers are
unimpeachable, untouchable and all pervading that can strike fear into the hearts of those who wish to break the covenant. Such an all pervading and all powerful government is termed, the Leviathan.
What about Democracy?
What is evident from our understanding of Hobbes is his preoccupation with protection. His idea of government hasn't much to do with the good life as Plato would have it, but with simply ensuring safety for the members of the society. To this end, he says clearly in the Leviathan that "Obedience is protection". He even draws a comparison of the three forms of governments, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy and supports the former with the argument that only in monarchy is the private interest of the ruler aligned with public interests. He says "For no king can be rich, nor glorious, nor secure, whose subjects are either poor, or contemptible, or too weak through want, or dissension, to maintain a war against their enemies; whereas in a democracy, or aristocracy, the public prosperity confers not so much to the private fortune of one that is corrupt, or ambitious, as doth many times a perfidious advice, a treacherous action, or a civil war."
Have it or Takeaway? Takeaway please
Hobbes didn't believe in the kind of liberal democracy that we do today. Not that the ideas didn't exist, as they date back to early Greece. But the times that he wrote in necessitated a political theory that could solve the ongoing problem of factionalism and divisiveness. Today's times are no stranger to such situations. So called states of nature are today prevalent in parts of Middle East, West Asia and Africa. Civil strife and lack of government continue to wreck havoc on people's lives and "planting seeds of democracy" has only worsened the situation. Iraq, a country that was ravaged by the US and had its dictator deposed, is even today struggling to put together a stable government. Libya is in pretty much the same situation. Maybe a Leviathan could hold together such volatile lands and in fact they did. Saddam Hussein and Mummar Al Gaddafi, for all their humanitarian violations, did manage to organize and put together stable regimes in regions of social instability and mistrust, which in hindsight, might seem the better option.
Hobbes shows us that goals of liberty and equality can sometimes be too much to ask for. Sometimes, mere protection is the holy grail, and its keeper, the Leviathan.
Sources:
Democracy(Problems of Philosophy) : Ross Harrison
Leviathan : Thomas Hobbes
De Cive : Thomas Hobbes
History of Western Philosophy : Bertrand Russell
The English weren't always sipping tea and sinking into their armchairs in vain colonial pride. In fact, tea was only made popular by the Catherine of Braganza, the wife of Charles II who ruled England during the restoration period, beginning from 1660. However, during the two decades preceding this, the English Civil War(or the war of the three kingdoms) brought the island to its knees, as it engulfed the nation in a spate of massacre and bloodshed, that took over 200,000 lives.
 |
| Thomas Hobbes |
State of Nature
Hobbes and subsequent thinkers like Locke and Rousseau were different from erstwhile Plato and Aristotle in an important sense. The Greeks believed that the individual couldn't be separated from the society. That if the individual was 'a hand' , then the society was the body. So inseparable and meaningless was the individual outside society. Hence, while all these philosophers kept the individual and his good at the heart of their political thought, the Greeks began thinking about the good of the individual only as a part of the society.
Hobbes meanwhile thought differently. Hobbes understood that political society was a human construct. He then tried to address questions like, how did this institution even come to exist, or why does it exist, or what purpose does the political society serve? Hobbes, for the genius that he was, conceived of a pre-political society called state of nature, where people hadn't yet thought of having a kind of a chief. It was exactly, a state of nature, where no man-made institutions existed. Now Hobbes doesn't care much if it actually ever existed, but what he cares for is the insight that such a thought experiment lends. This is a lot like how economists imagine a time when people used barter exchange instead of currency, a time of which there is scant historical evidence, but which nonetheless, helps us understand the usefulness of money.
 |
| State of Nature |
Now Hobbes described this state of nature in the De Cive as "is nothing but a meere warre of all again all; and in that warre all men have equal rights unto all things". In the Leviathan, he describes the condition of man in this nature as "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short". It is evident that during Hobbes time, when the civil war had ensued, a situation akin to the state of nature had come to exist, where there was no effective political authority and every one was free equally to loot, plunder and kill.
Now according to Hobbes, everyone would want to get out of this condition of savagery and agree to come together and sign a covenant, wherein everyone is to protect the other. This covenant is called a social contract , which entails everyone's protection by everyone. Voila! Hence comes an end to the state of savagery? Hobbes could also see through the apparent simplicity of the solution. His suspicions were right when he said in the Leviation that "the bonds of words are too weak to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger, and other Passions,without the feare of some coërcive Power".
A typical prisoner's dilemma problem, in economic parlance.
Hence, Hobbes suggests the need for the set up of a ruler or a council whose powers are
 |
| The biblical sea monster, Leviathan |
What about Democracy?
What is evident from our understanding of Hobbes is his preoccupation with protection. His idea of government hasn't much to do with the good life as Plato would have it, but with simply ensuring safety for the members of the society. To this end, he says clearly in the Leviathan that "Obedience is protection". He even draws a comparison of the three forms of governments, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy and supports the former with the argument that only in monarchy is the private interest of the ruler aligned with public interests. He says "For no king can be rich, nor glorious, nor secure, whose subjects are either poor, or contemptible, or too weak through want, or dissension, to maintain a war against their enemies; whereas in a democracy, or aristocracy, the public prosperity confers not so much to the private fortune of one that is corrupt, or ambitious, as doth many times a perfidious advice, a treacherous action, or a civil war."
Have it or Takeaway? Takeaway please
Hobbes didn't believe in the kind of liberal democracy that we do today. Not that the ideas didn't exist, as they date back to early Greece. But the times that he wrote in necessitated a political theory that could solve the ongoing problem of factionalism and divisiveness. Today's times are no stranger to such situations. So called states of nature are today prevalent in parts of Middle East, West Asia and Africa. Civil strife and lack of government continue to wreck havoc on people's lives and "planting seeds of democracy" has only worsened the situation. Iraq, a country that was ravaged by the US and had its dictator deposed, is even today struggling to put together a stable government. Libya is in pretty much the same situation. Maybe a Leviathan could hold together such volatile lands and in fact they did. Saddam Hussein and Mummar Al Gaddafi, for all their humanitarian violations, did manage to organize and put together stable regimes in regions of social instability and mistrust, which in hindsight, might seem the better option.
Hobbes shows us that goals of liberty and equality can sometimes be too much to ask for. Sometimes, mere protection is the holy grail, and its keeper, the Leviathan.
Sources:
Democracy(Problems of Philosophy) : Ross Harrison
Leviathan : Thomas Hobbes
De Cive : Thomas Hobbes
History of Western Philosophy : Bertrand Russell
Comments
Post a Comment