PIR 813: POLITICAL THOUGHT |
[Hobbesian International Relations] |
|
Ong'anya |
|
Thomas Hobbes was a British philosopher born at a time Europe was in political turmoil. In his own country, there was a struggle between the monarch and parliament. He is said to have been born prematurely and is quoted as saying that he was born twins with fear. His philosophy is therefore greatly influenced by these circumstances, as he sets to investigate the best form of governance that would assure political stability. He argues for an absolutist system where all citizens surrender their rights to sa strong sovereign for the sake of peace. He however holds that the sovereign is responsible to the provision of security, failure to which he may be toppled: he therefore insists on political responsibility. |
Presented to Mr Simon Chessetto
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
This work contains the following sub sections:
Hobbesian Political Psychology
Hobbesian International Relations
Birth
Thomas Hobbes was born on 5th April 1588 at Westport, Wiltshire. He had his elementary education at Westport church school and also at Malmesbury. At Magdalen Hall in Oxford University, Hobbes was disgruntled with the learning process, opting instead to study men and current affairs. His opinions were largely shaped by his lifestyle of travelling and meeting people of different orientations.
Intellectual Environment
On his admission for a bachelor's degree in 1608, he was appointed tutor to the son of William Cavendish. At 20 years he became a tutor to William Cavendish, who later became the Earl of Devonshire (Thomas Hobbes 2006). He also interacted with physical scientists, including Galileo, an Italian astronomer, René Descartes, a renowned French philosopher and Pierre Gassendi, also from France. Others were Kepler and Montaigne. He is acclaimed of providing a secular justification of state, against scholasticism (Thomas Hobbes 2008).
These interactions with natural science scholars greatly influenced his political philosophy as he thought in terms of mechanical social interaction: that the sovereign should be like a machine operator, and that the subjects should be passive recipients of the sovereign's policies. He sees human society I terms of motion and laws of motion. Thus human behaviour is explained in terms of motion: the action-reaction perspective. He defines imagination as decaying sense. This is explained in terms of motion which may only be stopped by opposing motion. Passions are 'interior beginning of voluntary motions.' They are the last appetites in deliberation. Desire and fear are thus part of human nature. Ecstasy is thus the sustainable accomplishment in achieving personal desires. Man is therefore embroiled in a struggle to get even more: it is human nature to be acquisitive. In an analogy, moving objects increase velocity as they progress, until they bump into an obstacle. Hobbes believes the perpetual desire for power ceases at death. Man endeavours to get more power because he is not sure of what he currently has. For strong states, they assure domestic power by laws, while external power is assured by war. For other states they pride in fame.
Political Realities
The environment in which Thomas Hobbes was born contributed a lot to his philosophy, especially in politics. He was born at a time when England and Spain were at war, a war that devastated the Spanish navy, while generating glory to the English naval power (Pollitt 2006). Tensions were high between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, thus the cause of military interaction between King Phillip of Spain and Queen Elizabeth I of England (ibid).
The constitutional struggles between King Charles I and Parliament inspired him to write in support of a powerful monarch, a case that would put him on the war path with Parliament. The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic was first circulated in 1640 before its official publication ten years later. He was later self-exiled in Paris for eleven years (ibid). His theory of government, On Citizenship was done in 1642. In 2 years ending 1648, Hobbes tutored the Prince of Wales who later became King Charles II, then exiled in Paris as well (Thomas Hobbes 2006) during the era of Oliver Cromwell. He did the Leviathan in 1651, explaining his support for Commonwealth. This attacked the papacy, thus putting him at logger heads with the French establishment causing his return to England, where he pledged allegiance to Cromwell. With the enthronement of King Charles II in 1660 Hobbes enjoyed the freedom extended to him, until 1666 when he was accused of questioning religion. He contended that one could not gain knowledge of God. He later died at 91.
In his Leviathan, Hobbes is against the rule of democracy, supporting monarchy or a parliament, with absolute powers. He wrote against separation of powers as advocated by John Locke. At the time, there was political crisis is England and only a big strong government could contain the mess. His system, thus, could not qualify for constitutionalism, as argued by De Smith.
State of Nature
Thomas Hobbes envisaged a system where the sovereign is the overall in terms of command. The state is an artificial set up necessitated by the heartlessness of the state of nature where life is "solitary, nasty, brutish and short." On bestowing power on an individual/single institution, the individual/institution should operate for the benefit of the masses, failure to which it may be removed from power.
Opposed to the misunderstanding of many on the leviathan, Hobbes envisaged this artificial man as safety of the people as the main business. He draws parallels to the way God created the earth by commanding, "Let there be…" So men came together and decided that there should be a leviathan. Hobbes insinuates that a state has to espouse equity and the rule of law, and avoid civil war as he draws an analogy with death.
Laws are there to guide the behaviour of people, and without laws, therefore all is well. No behaviour is bad when there is no law to that effect
The Desires, and other Passions of man, are in themselves no Sin. No more are the Actions, that proceed from those Passions, till they know a Law that forbids them; which till Lawes be made they cannot know: nor can any Law be made, till they have agreed upon the Person that shall make it. (Hobbes, Leviathan 2002, 69)
Hobbesian Political Psychology
There are three main reasons why men are inclined to peace, the main one being fear of death. As indicated earlier, the state of nature comprised of heartless individuals, who cared only about their welfare. There was no talk of justice, because there was no injustice. Each man was for himself, while god catered for all. The desire to gain the necessities of life brought man to the realisation that peace is a basic requirement, and that by human industry, the commodities are within reach. The factors necessitated recognition of the laws of nature through reason, and these laws are the Articles of Peace.
Hobbes contends that natural law is known by reason. It states that man should do that which cannot lead to self destruction. Liberty is doing something without any external impediments, and which include a right to someone else's life. This therefore negates the rule of natural law. The right of nature is what each man has for his own preservation, and this is egocentric. With this right, which is inherent, there can be no peace, but perpetual struggle for the survival, with the weak falling prey to the mighty.
Morality is an illusion that finds its existence only in our heads. Morality is thus an engendered feeling of an aspect of external environment, driven by emotive psychology.
Fascist regimes believe in military solutions, that nations should be allowed to go to war for there to be peace. To them, pursuing peace is like rotten pond of stagnant water: cowardice and feminist. Indeed, peace may not come but by the barrel of a gun. There is the natural tendency in humans to acquire. Peace may prevail in circumstances where there is a supreme authority, a fiat to enforce a rule of law as agreed upon in a social contract. If it were possible to maintain peace without setting up punitive measures against defaulters, then there is no need for a leviathan, a civil government: this is not the state of nature.
As to lower animals like bees and ants, which according to Aristotle are political, they remain peaceful because they lack the rational element. They cannot draw a line between injury and damage, and thus remain calm. With human beings, at a time of calm is the best for confrontation in competition for supremacy. Human beings are ambitious, as opposed to these animals which work for the general benefit of their community. There is no competition, as each would do its part without questioning the effectiveness of others. This builds their morale.
Hobbes on Democracy
Thomas Hobbes stands against a democratic regime on the basis that the sovereign would not implement his policies in the best way. He advocates for an absolutist leader who would stand his ground, him alone knowing what is good for the state. The state of nature is one of war of all against all, one of survival for the fittest as argued by Charles Darwin. Human beings are by nature controversial and ambitious. They always think of confrontation for leadership, thus the reason why there cannot be calm in society, because a time when calm shows itself, it is the best time for one to prove his leadership over another person. Struggle for power is thus endless. Plato also had the idea that the philosopher king knows what is good for the people. For him, the three classes in society are natural, that the philosopher kings were born to lead, the guards were born to secure the state, while the commoners were destined to work, and thus to be dominated by guardians and philosopher kings, the latter having obtained a summum bonnum.
Hobbes distinguishes between political ambition and political obligation. He decries ambition as the cause of mis-leadership, and thus proposes a monarchical system to stem ambition, and instead uphold obligation. He accused parliamentarians of power struggles, thus threatening the leviathan-like state. To him, parliamentarians are merely ambitious individuals driven by their appetites going for political positions but cannot take political responsibility of fighting hunger (De Cive paragraph v. Chapter 5). Thus he has reservations for an assembly in favour of a monarchy. In his argument, Hobbes contends that there is no secrecy in the operations of an assembly. For the monarch, he receives sound advice in secrecy, and by intelligent people committed to the general good. For the assembly, counsel received is one characterised by selfish ambitions, and one that lacks secrecy. Decisions of an assembly may be grossly biased, and may even be overturned. Resulting inconsistencies may lead to a civil war, which Hobbes likens to death.
Leadership Responsibility
Leaders are meant for the led, and not the other way round. The leaders therefore have a responsibility to perform, in spite of the fact that rights have been surrendered to them. Political obligations include assuring security for the people, and exercising a leadership within the framework of justice. The state has the responsibility of assuring security, guarding against enemy forces. A military should be big enough as to assure security, and in case of a military confrontation, the citizens have a responsibility to assist the state, because at a time of peace it is the very state that would provide security for the citizen (Hobbes, Leviathan 1968, 227). On the military therefore, Hobbes is in agreement with Machiavelli who advised the Prince to have a strong military (Machiavelli 1513, Ch x).
A hobbesian political system presupposes a human rights regime, endowed with respect for liberties, motivation of political players and duties of subjects as well as rulers. However, the leviathan is an abstraction expected to operate in fiat to assure the survival and security of subjects. Hobbes believes in God as the sovereign of sovereigns and that by implication, he has duties towards man (Hobbes, Leviathan 2002, 179).
Hobbes philosophy has also been captured in the leviathan, where he defines it as
the Knowledge acquired by Reasoning, from the Manner of the Generation of any thing, to the Properties; or from the Properties, to some possible Way of Generation of the same; to the end to bee able to produce, as far as matter, and humane force permit, such Effects, as humane life requireth. (Hobbes, Leviathan 2002, 343)
As a rationalist, Hobbes lays his epistemological idealism argument on the basis of reason. He says eternal and immutable truth is discovered through reason. Experience is not philosophy because it is not attained by reasoning and more so even brute animals undergo experience. This is merely "memory of successions of events in times past." Any change in the circumstances results to distorted results. He rejects prudence as a part of philosophy as it deals with experience. Prudence is having good sense. He further disputes revelation because it is not acquired through reason.
Hobbes links leisure to commonwealth and peace. He says peace and leisure trails a commonwealth, and commonwealth trails philosophy. Leisure, he says, is the mother of philosophy- thus the tautology.
Hobbes criticises Aristotle's scholastic program as non-study. He attacks them on the basis that they admitted students who were already learned. These schools could not admit students who had no knowledge of geometry, adding that no geometrician passed through a philosopher's hands. The moral philosophies of these philosophers as observed by Hobbes described their passions. In his autobiography, Hobbes laments that he "fed his mind on maps and charts of earth and sky, tracked the sun in its path… and followed Drake and Cavendish as they girdled the main" (Hobbes, as quoted in Adler, p 41).
In his Politics, Aristotle argued that it is law which governs, not men, thus a government of laws. Hobbes says law is mere words on paper and without the "hands and sword of men" they cannot be implemented. He adds that "it is men and arms, not words and promises that make the force and power of the laws."
In Hobbes' Political Theory, Deborah Baumgold (1988, 15) avers that hobbesian politics lays emphasis on institutions rather than individuals, thus in favour of Max Weber's bureaucratic society.
Individual purposes are satisfied through the state, and therefore the state is an instrument for the purpose as maintained by instrumental individualists. Communitarians on the other hand contend that political membership is important within the state as this would serve individual identity and development.
Professor Makau Mutua argues
The minimum…responsibility of the republican state is to protect those under its rule and their property. Any state that fails to perform those core tasks forfeits its right to rule, or even to exist. It certainly is not deserving of sovereign independence. (Mutua 2009)
A state may also be understood as the highest level of human community. It "claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory" (Weber 1946). Michael Walzer holds that the justification for a state is the preservation of the right to self preservation, yet ironically it limits the right of self preservation (Walzer 1970). This is the point that Hobbes insisted. The leviathan is given absolute powers to escape the state of nature.
Hobbes contends that the principle of sovereignty consists of a contract where the citizens surrender all their rights to a leviathan. He disputes the idea of an insurrection against the leviathan, as this would be reminiscent of rejecting oneself. The failure of Hobbes to acknowledge the effective force of a sovereign is considerable. Transferring rights is not synonymous with transfer of power as the people will transfer rights, but retain power. A right without means is, at best, null. In his De Cive, however, he justifies disobedience in self defence. He rationalises that for self preservation, there is no obligation under any contract to remain indifferent to a force that may hurt or kill (Chapter II paragraph 18).
Many scholars have been engaged in fallacies in their work concerning the theory of state. It is almost a foregone conclusion that humanity cannot do without state. Except for the few anarchist literature, society has been made to believe that life is not possible without a state. The question of whether a society should have a leader has been neglected and instead focus is on what kind of leader a society should go for. The same argument merits in the debate on the UN reforms. Is it possible to have a world government, an absolutist regime capable of enforcing international law? What is witnessed today is the promotion of the passions of the world powers using the platform of the United Nations and international law. Struggle for state power therefore, tops the agenda of the mighty. To Hobbes, this is the anarchist state of nature.
Hobbesian International Relations
Hobbes' theory does not speak of a realistic state of nature, but a thought on how the society would be without a leviathan. There may never have been a hobbesian state of nature at any given historical time where individuals were all for themselves. However, for nations and states, there is anarchy and a state of subordination. In an effort to assure state security, states keep on arming themselves to enhance a balance of power. He argues:
…yet in all times, Kings, and persons of Soveraigne authority, because of their Independency, are in continuall jealousies, and in the state and posture of Gladiators; having their weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed on one another… (Hobbes, Leviathan 2002, 69)
Stanley Hoffmann believes that International Relations is so distinct owing to the competing interests of international actors (Hoffmann 1960, 1). This would then create a state of anarchy at the international level, as there lacks a centrally powerful authority to enforce laws. Nations are known to contravene international provisions with impunity, as happened to Iraq as Saddam Hussein was ousted from power by a coalition of the willing led by the United States. This was true even during the Peloponnesian war as a general was quoted by Thucydides saying "the strong do what they have the power to do, and the weak accept what they have to accept."
Law is the command of the sovereign, and so international law is the command of the powerful. Ethics and morality are not important. International peace is not a result of altruism, but rather prudential considerations of the likely effects of war. A relatively weaker nation may not attack a strong nation, fearing the likely repercussions. An arms race will thus result which may lead to a balance of power, culminating in a state of mutual deterrence. The bottom-up approach to peace, to Hobbes, may arise in consideration of prudence, but neither morality nor altruism.
Human nature is egoistic and thus all human acts are geared towards self satisfaction.
"…and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some Good To Himselfe." (Hobbes, Leviathan 2002, 72). Even grief, he argues stems from human egocentrism. One would feel for another because the same situation may befall him as well (2002, 32). It has been a practice of the African Union to condemn coups, not because of principle, but rather the repercussions and likely precedence.
The balance of power principle is also discussed. All people are equal in power in terms of mind and body. Hobbes says:
For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others, that are in the same danger with himselfe. (2002, 66-67)
In East Africa, Uganda is the smallest country, yet Amin was convinced that he could get away with territories from both Kenya and Uganda. Germany under Hitler also believed that the whole world could be under its command as Iraq under Saddam believed it could attack and defeat Iran. Power inequalities may only be discerned in a battle. The basic equality therefore gives the hope for a nation to attain its ends.
Thomas Hobbes died a senior bachelor on 4th December 1679. He is quoted in a cited work (Hastings 1981, 726) of his remark that could he have read as much as other men, he should have been as ignorant as them! He was widely published, with close to 50 writings, including the often quoted Leviathan.
Criticism
The political philosophy espoused by Hobbes has been faulted as ignoring the moral and religious aspects of human nature. The late 17th Century Cambridge Platonists criticised his theory as too emphatic on senses (Cambridge Platonists 2008).
Richard Cumberland argues for political idealism, by criticising the hobbesian state of nature. He believes that the ultimate standard of morality is the good for all, and not the egocentric tendencies creating a war of all against all. Cumberland is among the pioneers of utilitarianism (Richard Cumberland 2008).
John Locke disputes hobbesian state and the concept of sovereignty. He argues that the state is sovereign to the extent that it is subject to natural and civil law. The state should be democratic and protect individual rights.
Francois Guizot argues that the concept of sovereignty was not necessary for the embodiment of state. Rights, to him, cannot be monopolised by a section of society, as sovereignty according to Hobbes is a preserve of the monarch or an assembly of men.
Hobbes allows rebellion whenever in self defence against the sovereign. This questions his theory of an absolute sovereign as the true liberties of subjects may subject the society to a state of nature he is trying to save humanity from. The subjects would be free to judge whether the sovereign is providing adequate protection.
Works Cited
Baumgold, Deborah. Hobbes' Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
"Cambridge Platonists." Microsoft Encarta Premium 2009. [DVD]. Redmond, Washington: Microsoft Corporation, 2008.
Hastings, James, ed. "Thomas Hobbes." Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. Vol. VI. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1981. 726.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Edited by C. B. Macpherson. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968.
—. "Leviathan." Project Gutenberg Ebook. Edward White. May 2002. http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext04 (accessed February 26, 2009).
Hoffmann, Stanley. "International relations as a discipline. Commentary." In Contemporary Theory in International Relations, edited by Stanley Hoffmann. Eaglewood-Cliffs , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1960.
Machiavelli, Nicolo. "Nicolo Machiavelli: The Prince." Medieval Sourcebook. Edited by W. K. Marriott. 1513. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40 (accessed May 10, 2008).
Mutua, Makau. "Extra Judicial Killings Must be brought to an End." Sunday Nation, March 15, 2009: 15.
Pollitt, Ronald L. "Spanish Armada." Microsoft Student 2007. DVD. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 2006.
"Richard Cumberland." Microsoft Encarta Premium 2009. [DVD]. Redmond, Washington: Microsoft Corporation, 2008.
Smith, De. "Constitutionalism in the Commonwealth Today." Malaya Law Review, 1962: 1.
"Thomas Hobbes." Microsoft Student 2007. [DVD]. Redmond, Washington: Microsoft Corporation, 2006.
"Thomas Hobbes." Microsoft Encarta 2009. [DVD]. Redmond, Washington: Microsoft Corporation, 2008.
Walzer, Michael. "The Obligation to die for the State." In Obligations: Essays on Disobedience, War and Citizenship, 87. Cambridge: Havard University Press, 1970.
Weber, Max. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1946.
