Back to The Evolution
of Democracy.
The Evolution of Democracy:
Part 3:
Thomas Hobbes on Commonwealth:
In part 2 of this series I discussed Hobbes' arguments for monarchy.
He presented those arguments in the first part of his work, Leviathan.
In part two of Leviathan, Hobbes continues his arguments by presenting
his case for commonwealth. He gives the purpose of commonwealth
as self preservation and a more contented life. He notes that
the restraints of commonwealth will circumvent the state of anarchy
which he calls a condition of war. The idea is that the fear of
punishment will normally cause men to keep their commitments and
observe the laws.
Hobbes argues that his laws of nature are contrary to our natural passions. Hence a power or authority is necessary to enforce them. He insists that this power must be absolute.
How does this absolute authority come about? According to Hobbes it is created through the social contract which he had previously defined. In this contract, the people act to confer all of their power and strength upon one man or an assembly of men. This act then reduces all of their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will.
Simply put, this is an agreement between the people to give power to a single man or assembly, so long as the others also agree to do the same. Once they do this, the entity that they have created is called a commonwealth. We should note here, that the sovereign itself is not a party to this contract. It stands outside and above it and is not bound by it. Thus the sovereign, by definition, cannot breach the contract.
From that reasoning, Hobbes makes what many would consider an unnecessary and controversial point. He insists that, since the sovereign is not bound by it, this social contract, once executed must be permanent. It cannot be changed or rescinded even by making a new agreement with God. Once a monarchy is instituted, it cannot be dissolved, it cannot be forfeited, it cannot even be protested.
The sovereign is the law and the power. The sovereign has the right to judge, to make rules, to make war, to make peace, to reward and punish, to bestow honor, and to keep order. To Hobbes, the power of the sovereign is absolute whether it comes about by contract or by force. In his thinking, a government by force is simply a contract by forfeiture. He is adamant in his defense of established authority over any public grievance, no matter how popular or just.
As to the forms a commonwealth may take, Hobbes allows three. These three derive from how the power of the sovereign is invested. It can be a monarchy, an aristocracy or a democracy. Thus, the sovereign is not a thing but a function. In a monarchy the function of sovereignty is invested in a single person. In an aristocracy the sovereign is invested in a ruling class. In a democracy, the function is invested in an assembly of men.
Hobbes goes on to say that the real difference in these three forms of commonwealth is not in the power afforded the sovereign, but in the convenience of executing that power for the public good. For this, Hobbes favors a monarchy. He sees the private interests of the monarch as being identical to the interests of the public. From that he argues that a popular representative, when tempted, would give preference to his own private interests. Did this guy time travel to Washington or what?
Hobbes continues his case for monarchy by pointing out that a monarch may seek advice in public or in private at his discretion. This is not the case for an assembly which is public by it's very nature. Furthermore, a monarch may deliberate in private, whereas an assembly must deliberate in public which may incite public action.
I love this next point. A monarch is not likely to be inconsistent with himself, from day to day. Thus he is not likely to cause civil war by disagreeing with himself. Hobbes acknowledges that a monarch may be subject to influence and flattery, but he lays the same charge at the door of the assembly.
Ho points out that the assembly is subject to evil counsel. They are as easily seduced by oratory as a monarch can be by flattery. They can also flatter one another and serve one another's interests and ambitions. Hobbes allows that, even if corrupt, a monarch has only one pork barrel to fill, whereas and assembly could easily run the people out of pork. I swear, this guy has been to Washington.
The major weakness of a monarchy, the question of succession, is also the major weakness of Hobbes' political philosophy. In the case of an immoral or idiot monarch he allows no recourse. He notes that the sovereign may descend upon an infant or a fool, but he brushes this off as the lesser of evils.
In 1685 the sovereign of England did descend upon a fool. King James II of England, the moron monarch, took the throne. He hung on until 1688 when he was deposed by "The Glorious Revolution." This revolution was bloodless because James had no significant support. In his short reign he had managed to alienate every political power in England.
By invitation of English representatives, William of Orange invaded England with his army and marched on London. James saved his head by fleeing to France and the protection of Louie XIV. A convention of Parliament then crowned William and his wife Mary as joint sovereigns. While in session, this parliament also passed a "Bill of Rights."
That "Bill of Rights" forever put an end to the power struggle between Parliament and the monarchy. From that time on, the power of Parliament was decisive in all matters. The monarch became, and remains to this day, a diplomat without portfolio whose only power rests in the English people's abiding love of the institution.
Next time, I will discuss some of the contributions of John
Locke to our concepts of democracy.
Back to The Evolution of
Democracy.
|
|
|
|