In chapter 29, Hobbes lists off a variety of specific reasons for why a “commonwealth” might fail, centered around the core idea that commonwealths fail because of an “imperfect institution.” America fulfills most, if not all of the specific reasons for failure, but has three noteworthy reasons: the division of sovereign power (29.12), mixed government (29.16), and the liberty of disputing against sovereign power (29.21). These traits weaken the absolute authority of the sovereign power in the commonwealth (the President, Congress, and Supreme Court), which was by design by the Founding Fathers in their system of checks and balances. However, it is clear that Hobbes expects the ‘commonwealth’ of the American political structure to fail eventually because of this intentionally weakened system.
So, if Hobbes says the American political structure is going to fail as it stands, how would Hobbes suggest we reorder the American political structure to create stability and consolidate authority? The American political system would first and foremost have to remove its system of checks and balances, doing away with the separation of power and mixed government. “For what is it to divide the power of a commonwealth, but to dissolve it? for power divided mutually destroy each other” (29.12). To Hobbes, this division of power dilutes any and all real authority that the commonwealth holds, because it creates ‘factions’ within the commonwealth that lead to infighting while also causing the commonwealth to neglect to serve the people. “Therefore if the king bear the person of the people, and the general assembly bear also the person of the people, and another assembly bear the person of a part of the people, they are not one person, more one sovereign, but three persons, and three sovereigns” (29.16). In the wake of the Trump election, there has been rampant political and social infighting, demonstrating that Hobbes’ words at least have some truth.
But, if the American political system were to do away with the system of checks and balances, what would be the result? What sovereign power would America turn to? Hobbes suggests in chapter 19 that a monarchy is the most practical and effective form of sovereign power, so let’s limit the scope of analysis to just a monarch for now. If America were to convert successfully to a monarchical system with absolute power, and that monarch turned against the people, the people would still be bound by the sovereign’s power, since a ‘perfect system’ doesn’t allow for the liberty to dispute the sovereign (29.21) and the rights of the sovereign power allow it to stay in power (listed in chapter 19). Hobbes’ stance against the right to revolution makes a true monarchy less appealing in a modern world. But, would a true democracy be any better? In a country with the size and diversity of opinion as America, a true democracy seems like it would lead to political paralyzation, where no political decisions would be made because majority might not ever occur, only plurality.
This leaves the question standing: is it better to have a system of checks and balances and risk political factions, in-fighting, and the dilution of power, or to have one sovereign power, whether monarch, single general assembly (aristocracy), or a true democracy?
Hobbes argues that a sovereign power would be the optimal system of government under the premise that individuals act rationally and there is not a palpable differentiation amongst individuals. The assumption that citizens will always act in consonance to rational thought is quite an ambitious pretense, partly due to the elusiveness of a concretization of rational thought and partly due to the very essence of human nature. Likewise, the lack of a differentiation amongst humans (which is possibly true in the abstract sense), certainly does not manifest itself in the real world, as history has shown us that individuals (whether due to societal pressures or inherent characteristics) have varying impacts on society. Thus the central axioms of Hobbes’s theory are merely approximated in the real world, leading to the need of a more divided power. One could potentially argue that conflict (or as you termed it in-fighting) not only serves as a filter for political ideology but leads to expedited development of human thought- ultimately stagnating political progress at the cost of human advancement.
ReplyDelete