Tentative Response--Hobbes and the Sovereign

In Chapter 18, Hobbes introduces the idea of the “sovereign”. Throughout the chapter, Hobbes refers to a monarchy, but the first part of chapter 18 makes it clear that the sovereign of a commonwealth is not the same as a king. He writes, “a commonwealth is said to be instituted, when a multitude of men do agree, and covenant, […] that to whatsoever man, or assembly of men, shall be given by the major part, the right to present the person of them all” (115). From this, it’s clear that the sovereign is meant to be a representative of the people, and that he has been given power by the rest. Hobbes continues on to state that men who voted for and against the representative should be loyal to him, emphasizing that the people chose the sovereign and gave him the power to rule directly. Unlike a monarchial system, where power lies in bloodline, Hobbes initially seems to be describing a sort of representative democracy. His statement in the beginning sentence that a commonwealth can be ruled by a man or “assembly of men” also made me think of his description as a representative democracy. However, in the rest of the chapter, Hobbes gives the sovereign unchecked power. It’s almost impossible for the people to rebel against him, unseat him, or complain about any of his policies. Hobbes argues that because the people chose the sovereign, they should blame any issues they have with him on themselves. I found this amusing, because since it does not take into account that the sovereign could be disingenuous, it basically gives the sovereign free reign to do whatever he wants as the responsibility of choosing the sovereign is solely with the people. For this reason, I would say that it seems as though Hobbes does endorse dictatorships. At the end of the chapter, he provides some justification for this, stating that while critics may argue the subjects would be miserable under such a leader, they are better off than without government at all. While I agree with Hobbes that no type of government is perfect, I find it ironic that he endorses a type of government that appears to directly oppress the contestation of its people in order to resist chaos. What benefit does Hobbes’ sovereign give the people besides (possibly) saving them from themselves because of our inherent anarchic tendencies?