Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) is considered to be the theorist of ‘absolute sovereignty’. He grounded the nature and powers of the sovereign on the necessities entailed by the state of nature. His argued that the state of nature and the formulation of the instinct of self-preservation in individuals led to the origin of the State. Uncertainty characterized power, possessions and life in the state of nature and the individual is not sure of fruits of their labour and industry. Hobbes’s state of nature is pre-social and pre-political and there is no power to regulate, there is no principle of right or wrong and justice or injustice. For Hobbes, both the first law of nature and the natural instinct of individuals entail the search for peace, security and self-preservation. This, in turn, led to a social contract or covenant amongst individuals leading to the establishment of a corporate body, a commonwealth or the State. This contract is both social and political at the same time. While establishing the State, individuals surrendered all the rights they possessed in the state of nature to a third party who is not party to the contract. Thus, the sovereign is the third party who becomes the repository of all the rights and powers of individuals. According to Hobbes, the commonwealth was constituted when the multitude of individuals were united in one person, when every one said to the other, ‘I Authorize and give up my Right of Governing my selfe to this man, or this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy Right to him, and Authorize all his Actions in like manner.’¹³

This surrender of rights that existed before the covenant is complete, final and irreversible. Hobbes says that ‘I ground the civil rights of sovereign and both the duty and liberty of subjects upon the known natural inclinations of mankind.’ Security depended upon the existence of a sovereign having the power to keep the peace and to apply sanctions to curb man’s innately unsocial inclinations. The sovereign gets all-encompassing power to use force and apply laws. Hobbes’s justification for the use of force by the sovereign is based on the need to enforce the duties of individuas. Hobbes says, ‘Covenants, without the sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.’¹⁴

From the nature of the covenant, we can understand the nature and power of Hobbes’s sovereign. First, the emerging commonwealth is characterized by the presence of a sovereign who is not party to the covenant. Second, the sovereign is not bound by its terms but he/she enforces the contract in the interest of individuals. Third, the sovereign receives all the rights that individuals enjoyed in the state of nature as these rights were no more required by them. Fourth, the sovereign is a product of the will of the people and is justified in applying force to enforce compliance with the covenant. Fifth, the sovereign becomes the sole source of laws and the creator of rights and justice. Law becomes the command and creation of the sovereign who defines and interprets it. He distinguishes the law of the sovereign—civil law from natural law. While the former is described as a ‘command sanctioned by enforcement’, the latter is the ‘dictate of reason’. The law of nature is the basis for the creation of the sovereign and cannot be invoked to resist the command of the sovereign. By doing so, Hobbes removed the limitations, which had been put by Bodin. Furthermore, civil law cannot be contrary to the law of nature or it will be inequitable. Sixth, the sovereign represents unity as a multitude of men are made one person when they are represented by one man, or one person. This gives rise to Hobbes’s theory of a ‘corporate body’ where the State or society exists only when a unified sovereign exists. By implication, this means that when the sovereign is absent, the State dissolves. It is also said that Hobbes’s formulation of the sovereign does not distinguish between the sovereign and the government. This is the reason why Hobbes does not support the right to revolt against the sovereign as this would lead to the dissolution of not only the civil society but also the government, with a relapse into the state of nature. Seventh, we can say that Hobbes does not differentiate between society and the State on the one hand and the State and the government on the other. Wayper puts this very clearly when he says that Hobbes ‘fails to distinguish between State and Government, that he confounds the legal absolutism of the state with governmental absolutism.’¹⁵

The formulation of sovereignty as a necessary condition of a corporate body, be it society or the state or the government, lies at what Sabine calls, ‘the root of Hobbes’s absolutism.’ It leaves no choice except one between an absolute sovereign or complete anarchy. Furthermore, Hobbes treats associations as ‘worms in the entrails of the body politic’ and sub-ordinates all associations including the Church to the sovereignty of the Leviathan.¹⁶ As such, Hobbes’s concept of sovereignty is unitary, absolutist and all comprehensive. Such sovereignty is indivisible, inalienable and irrevocable except at the cost of the dissolution of the State itself.

Hobbes was writing in a time when Britain was facing political disorder and civil revolution. His avowed goal was to propound a theoretical basis for justifying and defending absolute rule. However, his defence of absolute sovereignty on the grounds of peace and security and preservation of the lives of individuals also lead to putting one limitation on the sovereign. Hobbes concedes to individual the right to disobey the sovereign when the sovereign does not achieve these ends. As he puts it, ‘the end of obedience is protection’ and ‘the obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long and no longer, than the power lasts, by which he (the sovereign) is able to protect them (subjects).’ Hobbes concedes this doctrine of minimalist resistance and his theory of political obligation gives only one ground of resistance—the violation of the right to life. His concept of the legitimacy of this power is based on the usefulness of it for securing satisfying living conditions for individuals.

We find in Hobbes’s theory of sovereignty the formulation of a legitimate, rightful and absolute authority detached from any religious connotations seeking peace and order in the State. Hobbes’s formulation of sovereignty is monistic in many ways, which gets fuller treatment by Austin as the monist theory of sovereignty.