.

Philosophy

Thomas Hobbes

_______________

Hobbes: The Ideal Government

_______________

_______________

A look at how the political philosopher's vision survives in a 21st-century context.

_______________

Opposing Aristotle and Descartes, Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) both believed in God and argued for the ranking of the State over that of the Church.  Famous for his Leviathan, his influence on political philosophy, much like the Book of Job’s mythical sea serpent, was monumental. His “social contract” was a fundamental pillar in the United States’ Constitution, under which the people would cede a portion of their rights in exchange for the government’s assurance of others. However, most of his political views strayed significantly from the ideals of the “Republic” to which he contributed. His political philosophy was necessarily tied to his views on man’s intrinsic nature. In his De Cive and his De Homine (About the Citizen, About the Man), Hobbes supposed that the natural state of humankind was one of violence, but he didn’t think that man, individually, was naturally either bad (prone to violence) or good (peace-loving). He argued that the problem occurred when people came together as a whole: it sufficed for a couple of members in a population to be motivated by selfish means, regardless of the peaceful intent of everyone else, and the community would be corrupted by chaos. In other words, peace requires a unanimous effort; just one dissent and utopia comes crashing down. Another point Hobbes made was that a person reasoning logically, prioritizing their benefit, would do better to dissent and nab a position of advantage over others; why wouldn’t a person take the opportunity? [1] Inevitably (to Hobbes), someone would be bound to think along those lines. It’s for this reason, Hobbes argued, that without a force to prevent this decision from presenting itself, chaos would undoubtedly reign.

Here is where Hobbes’ philosophy strays from the mainstream. He then followed with an argument as to the type of government that would best ensure order, but rather than value the republics and democracies which are today famed for it, he asserted that monarchies were the most effective systems for the preservation of peace. He directly correlated a government’s centralization with its ability to control its people, which, because of their more direct power, would then be better able to “keep the peace”. A decentralized government risks loose administrations, a lack of authority, etc. An absolute monarchy is ultimately the most centralized form of government; all power is kept in the hands of a single individual. Therefore, it is under a sovereign that a population is most likely to find peace. Hobbes wasn’t alone in thinking this; Niccolò Machiavelli’s (1469-1527) The Prince guided monarchs and rulers on how to manage their nations, in part, by assuring that they held sole or majority power, so that executive actions are less complex or slow to take effect. The argument is essentially one of “cutting the middleman”, or shortening the chain in the Telephone Game: with fewer factors, the more the input is likely to resemble the output, and the faster it gets through. Concentrating power and limiting the number of restraints on governmental action is what maximizes its power, allowing it to act unrestrained in – according to Thomas Hobbes – its assurance of peace. Peace, to Hobbes, is warless.

It’s important to note that Hobbes’ definition of a pure, absolute monarchy is different from a totalitarian government. Unlike totalitarianism, Hobbes doesn’t suggest that a sovereign should attempt to assert control over every facet of a subject’s life; however, both present a significant amount of power to their heads. About three hundred years later, both totalitarian governments and absolute monarchies exist. Was Hobbes “proved correct”? Can these states be deemed as “successful” in terms of peace within their borders? No state currently implements the exact vision he had in mind. Today, Eswatini, Saudi Arabia, and the Vatican City are some of the world’s most famous absolute monarchies. It’s interesting to recognize that the Vatican City is less of a theocracy, where the state is governed under religious principles, but an absolute monarchy, where power is granted to an individual – the Pope; even though it does seem counterintuitive to group him alongside Kings and Emperors. Though a study is certainly called for on how the Vatican jointly implements the values of the religious-moral-legal in its governance, Hobbes would have discarded the value of this nation based on his prioritization of a State authority over that of the Church. As for Eswatini, it has found itself in a state of constant civil unrest since its independence 53 years ago, during which “The Eswatini government continues to ignore the constitutional provisions on human rights and use law enforcement and legal instruments to crush calls for justice and democratic reform.” Taking into account Eswatini’s history, the fallout from its colonialist period is also at play here. Civil peace is neglected over civil obedience, and the Eswatinian unchecked power is diverted towards preserving its system rather than promoting peace, straying from Hobbes’ aspirations. However, the takeaway is as follows: in the modern context, a diversity of opinion is just as likely to emerge in a population as Hobbes’ “selfishly-motivated” people; therefore, an absolute monarchy in 2025 must account for some public dissidence, especially if spurred by the international media, no matter how centralized its power is. Finally, Saudi Arabia’s monarchy faces a similar issue to Eswatini, which is differentiating between regulating freedom and peace. When Western and the general international lens can easily breach borders, any “undemocratic” action taken (even by a non-democratic state) is likely to face scrutiny. When Saudi Arabia’s  “Specialized Criminal Court (SCC), established to try terrorism-related crimes, convicted and sentenced individuals to lengthy prison terms following grossly unfair trials solely for exercising their rights to freedom of association and expression,” organizations cried Outrage! and ignoring the “fairness” of such an action, the monarchy suppressing likely-disadvantageous media from circulating in its own domain suggests some internal conflict. The pattern here is media: under the public eye, a government may feel compelled to act differently, or, worse (for the sovereign), its people may feel drawn to another form of government. In the 21st century, it’s difficult to imagine an existing state successfully maintaining an absolute monarchy without expecting some internal dissidence, which can lead to external outrage if suppressed or calamity if allowed to blossom.

Dictatorial totalitarianism, however, has been more successful in the “modern world”. The North Korean government does not quite qualify as Orwellian, but its control over public dissidence has resulted in a generally peaceful population and an internally positive image of its supreme leader, Kim Jong Un. A key factor to its “inner stability” is its refusal to outside interference, including tourism and journalism, and its largely isolationist foreign policy. In this, it strays only from Hobbes’ vision by committing crimes against humanity on its population; Hobbes, in his “social contract”, agreed to the relinquishment of certain rights for a government to solidify others, yet North Korea assures little to no personal rights. Seeing that Hobbes’ ideal government has yet to be fully implemented, would a true-to-theory state be feasible? To what extent are the aforementioned “similar governments” ensuring peace rather than diminishing dissidence? Are those equivalent?

Hobbes doesn’t account for the possibility of power to corrupt; he also doesn’t acknowledge the bargain that comes with placing absolute power into the hands of as few as possible. Blaise Pascal’s (1623-1662) Wager, though religious, bears some consideration: the French philosopher argued to agnostics that it’s better to believe in God because the alternative, which is atheism or agnosticism, if proved false, faces a harsher punishment than false belief. Conversely, the “punishment” from trusting an absolute monarchy to a corrupt individual is concentrated chaos in favor of one person, whereas the “punishment” from attempting peace in an ungoverned population is plain chaos – pulled by people on all sides – which will lead to mutual exhaustion before tyranny begins to tire. The higher risk comes with having no government; the worse outcome results from having a destructive one. In the “real world”, power is likely to corrupt, and an absolute monarchy is unlikely to last without some tyrant rulers. [2] If this monarchy erupts into chaos or crime, it’s supposable that another nation may take action against it; neither Hobbes’ social contract nor his goal of peace is preserved.

The question then becomes: what would a true Hobbesian government look like in 2025? Totalitarian governments like North Korea have survived. The crux lies in the extent of power (which aligns with Hobbes’ ideas) rather than their organization (which differs) and their actions (which contradict). Hobbes argued for the preservation of rights as a call for governance; in that sense, North Korea’s government would not be performing its duty. If North Korea were to be more Hobbesian in nature, it would less constrict its populace’s rights and, rather, encourage trained support of the government. International media, for reasons of feasibility, would be managed, but the values of the population towards the merits of a sovereign leader are key to preserving a monarch-like order. Unity can’t be completely established at all times, so a government’s response to conflict is just as essential as the mitigation of it. Dissidence results in disobedience, which sparks conflict, or even revolution. A government could use its power to police or heavily discourage person-to-person conflicts; resources to fight could also fall under the rights surrendered in Hobbes’ social contract, notwithstanding their ability to criticize their government. Seeing that power determines authority, undermining the government isn’t harmful until it becomes threatening. Then again, the question of power comes in: what of corrupt police officers? What of those who steal out of necessity? Peace isn’t just the result of a lack of conflict between government and people; it’s also the product of plenty, a child of the successful patronage of kindness and non-violence. Hobbes assures us that with order will come peace, but he forgets the value of a man’s natural state, or the variability of the human psyche. Peace is a unanimous effort; even under the constraints of an administration, there may always be an outlier. Hobbes’ “dream government” is one that today would be branded (in the American standard) as unethical at best. It’s neither feasible nor a successful plan for a single country to adopt.

However, another option may be the establishment of a worldwide, or multinational, monarchy, in which the question of “international disapproval” is removed. Realpolitik would have each nation wary of the next, assuming all self-concerned and acting accordingly, but a Hobbesian Pangaea bypasses this; the limitation of journalism, balance of differing political systems, and maintenance of global relationships all become naught issues. Here, problems with North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Eswatini fall through, and a monarchy that obeys the social contract is given a longer shelf life. On the other hand, there is a carrying capacity for centralized governments, especially those with a select few at the top, which is limited by the breadth of their territory. A centralized government in Russia may be relatively strong in urban areas, but cannot be expected to function as efficiently in the outskirts of towns at the country’s borders. On the global scale, how can a King of the World efficiently keep order from Australia to Alaska, no matter how efficient travel can be? There would have to be more people implemented into the executive system; these people would require more leaders; these leaders, more leaders; and soon, a monarchy becomes much too large to be called so. Decentralization, or centralization too weak to sustain a vast amount of land, results in a lack of power, which then results in an increased likelihood of dissent or fighting, according to Hobbes. Additionally, the governance of more people increases the risks of some diverging from the masses. Ultimately, whether it be from revolutions, a lack of resources, or a lack of authority, a Global Throne is doomed to crumble.

What is true about Hobbes’ theory? The social contract has served several states well; the idea of unison still applies as the primary precursor to peace; a system of “absolute power” is still, technically, more efficient in taking action than other forms of government; but to quell conflict and ensure the least possible dissent, monarchies or dictatorships do not hold in the modern frame. With diversity of thought, peace is impossible; currently, differing opinions can reach all four corners of the Earth, and no current government is entirely successful in drowning them out.

Image Credit: Thomas Hobbes, Science Source Prints. Edited by The Boston Hound.

[1]: He thought that this “nabbing of power” would come in three ways: (i) that there would be “competition without allocation”, or that resources, undistributed, would be fought for, resulting in conflict; (ii) that there would be “diffidence”, or competition out of fear, where fights may ensue out of emotional charge; (iii)  that there would be competition for glory, and that man would fight to assert dominance over others in reputation or capability.

This is interesting towards the idea that mankind is naturally prone to organize itself – that, in any group of people, there is always some sort of order established (explicitly or implicitly), suggesting that a non-governed people would, regardless, ultimately find a way to arrange some sort of hierarchy or population-based system.

[2]: Please read Animal Farm, though real-life evidence can be found at https://exhibits.stanford.edu/spe.

Additional Sources:

THE BOSTON HOUND

present-tense philosophy

Relevant Pages

Social Media

©thebostonhound 2025

Loading…