2. Hobbes speaks of the sovereign. Who or what is the sovereign? Is it the same as a king (who was called the sovereign)? What are the limits of the sovereign's authority? Is Hobbes an apologist for dictators?
Hobbes constructs the image of the sovereign as the soul of the Leviathan. This identity of the sovereign is more abstract than a king, and more refers to the system of government that dictates the flow of society. He delineates that "sovereignty is an artificial soul" that gives "life and motion to the whole body" (7). This "whole body" refers to the state, and thus he sees sovereignty as the most integral part of the effective society. This sovereign is established by the multitude of people or commonwealth of a given state, and this sovereign is to be agreed upon officially with a covenant. This covenant involves a vote which "authorize[s] all the actions and judgements" of the "man, or assembly of men" to govern and protect the commonwealth (115). This sovereign consists of an active agreement between the multitude of men and the established ruler, where they assemble and reduce "all their wills, by plurality of voices, onto one will" (114). This effectively means that the individual voices in the commonwealth need to be acting for the advancement of the sovereign and by extension the state, in return for its protection and advantages. Because the sovereign is established by the people and is meant to act in the best interest of the Leviathan or State, it is therefore limited in its ability to satisfy all of its subjects.
Given this interpretation of Hobbes' definition of sovereign, it become clear that he is not necessarily an apologist for dictators. Although he gives a significant amount of authority to the sovereign, such as choosing doctrines, waging war, and giving rewards and punishments, Hobbes argues that the creation of the sovereign is intended to be of an agreement of people that are governed by it. He writes that the governing power, whether it be a "man" or "assembly of men," showing that its intention is not to have one sole dictator working towards selfish interests but instead a functioning system working in the interest of the state in its entirety.
I agree that the sovereign is the soul of the Leviathan, and that the sovereign is to be agreed upon officially with a covenant. However, I think you could interpret Hobbes to be an advocate for a dictatorship, at least in one sense. Hobbes always endorses the form of government, under the conditions that it is a covenant with the people and that is was constructed as an agreement in which the people relinquish part of their rights unto the sovereign. Regardless of whom is in control in a government, the people have already agreed upon this covenant for their greater good. Even if a dictator damages the society, Hobbes would consider partial loss superior to a return to the natural state of man. Furthermore, "every particular man is author of all the sovereign doth: and consequently he that complaineth of injury from his sovereign, complaineth of that whereof he is author" (117). Hobbes believes that this sovereign can do no injustice, and thus if it is the case that the people put the dictator in power, they can be seen as responsible for any injury that may occur.
ReplyDelete