In a specific criticism of what he called the “liberal’s failureâ€Â, founder and chairman of the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism Nicholas Provenzo exclaimed “[t]he pattern endures, the repeated error of treating dictators as ‘rational actors’ and predicting their actions based on that assumption that dictators will choose a course of action that benefits their countries and their citizens (1)â€Â. Clearly a logical claim in this day and age, when the word “dictator†brings to mind the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Hussein, this belief in the irrationality of dictators wasn’t always so. Namely, seventeenth century political theorist Thomas Hobbes stood up in firm support of a dictatorship, whom he referred to as an absolute sovereign, and even placed his arguments into one of the most remembered political writings of all time, The Leviathan. In this work Hobbes attempts to set up a relationship of absolute authority between the governed and the government, but inevitably fails to establish an absolute ruler or a submissive people. Ultimately, the rational person who is Hobbes’s sovereign can never be proven rational, and Provenzo’s criticism remains strong even in Hobbes’s theoretical world.

In order to see where Hobbes fails to truly provide for a workable common-wealth, it is important to begin with his theoretical state of nature, which is where Hobbes begins his exploration of human behavior and the psychology of man which leads to the establishment of his common-wealth. Most fundamentally, Hobbes equates the state of nature with a state of war. Believing that all people are only out for their own survival, Hobbes concludes that this must mean a world without the sovereign is a world where everyone fights everyone else. Specifically, “the state of nature is a state of war of all against all, punctuated by frequent violence, in which the participants correctly perceive themselves to be in constant danger. (2)†This gloomy outlook on the nature of mankind is one of the most basic premises of the call for a common-wealth and an absolute sovereign. Furthermore, Hobbes explains why he feels the state of nature exists as a state of war by offering three explicit assumptions, and two implicit ones. Firstly, Hobbes specifically mentions the ideas of natural equality, conflicting desires, and that people are forward-lookers. To explain, Gregory Kavka says that natural equality means that people are roughly, but not exactly, equal in their mental and physical powers. (2) Furthermore, he explains conflicting desires to mean that, quite often, the wants and needs of one person comes into conflict with the wants and needs of others, which leads to conflict. (2) Lastly, on the meaning of forward-lookers, Kavka explains that Hobbes means people are interested in not just their short-term well-being, but with their long-term well-being also, and strongly desire to prolong their lives. (3) It is Kavka, as well, who adds analysis to the two implied assumptions Hobbes makes. First, he explains the “advantage of anticipationâ€Â; noting that within this war of all against all, that anticipation of an attack, and therefore pre-emptive strike, better a person’s odds of survival. (3) Secondly, speaking of the last assumption, Kavka exerts that people will practice limited altruism, that in fact they will take any action that benefits them, no matter the affect on the survival of others. (3) It is through these five assumptions that Hobbes equivocates the state of nature with a state of war, the basis of his entire argument. Continuing in the discussion of this state of nature, another big issue comes about in examining Hobbes’s psychology of man. The idea that self-preservation is paramount is one of Hobbes’s most basic exertions about the psychology of man. He states that every person is out, as we saw in the final assumption, for numero uno – themselves. In Hobbes’s view of people, the only real goal in their life is self-preservation, a goal which they retain even after a commonwealth is formed. This is very important, the idea that if a person is feeling unsafe or endangered at anytime, they have the right to take any actions necessary to preserve themselves, because it supposedly serves as the basis for a forfeiture of liberty to the sovereign. The last necessary exploration of the state of nature relates to the natural condition’s relationship to forms of government other than Hobbes’s proposed common-wealth. Of great importance is Hobbes’s argument against democracy or other governments that separate powers. Hobbes contends that a separation of powers creates factions, and inevitably the factions will become very similar to individuals in the natural condition, fighting amongst themselves. (Goldsmith 29) Basically, Hobbes contends that any form of government other than an absolute monarchy, especially governments where powers are separated or where representation is granted, is just a different form of the state of nature. Kavka explains that, “[b]ecause of the constant danger of factionalism, civil war, and social disintegration in a group governed by a limited or divided power, such a form of social organization does not provide its members with sufficient security to really remove them from the state of nature.†(4-5)

Thus, Hobbes would contend that a democracy is just a variant of the natural condition. It is these three main contentions within Hobbes’s discussion of the natural condition that are key to formulating Hobbes’s intended and actual relationship between those who govern and those who are governed.

Now that Hobbes’s state of nature has been established, the next step is to look at the establishment of the commonwealth, a civil society ruled by an absolute sovereign. To begin, it is important to establish the selection process for the absolute sovereign. Very simply, because of Hobbes’s assumption that people within the natural condition are roughly equal, the choice of an absolute sovereign is quite arbitrary. No person really has a great upper hand on any other person, and therefore when it is time to select a leader, the people just make a choice without any real basis. This selection process, although never really explained in great detail, simply makes a “mortall god†out of an average Joe. Once the “Leviathan†has been selected, people are now able to begin their life in their newly formed commonwealth, where they exist safer and presumably without fear. But then the question becomes, at what cost do these people gain this security? According to Hobbes, when people enter into the commonwealth, they give up the ability to exercise all rights necessary to the success of the commonwealth. (Dixon 11) Due to further discussions by Hobbes on the government and the people’s roles in it, it would seem as though, and this is agreed upon by many critics, Hobbes asks all people to give up all their rights, except the right to self-preservation, which is paramount in Hobbes’s psychology of man. And thus is formed the commonwealth as described by Hobbes. But one real question still remains, which Hobbes truly fails to answer. Assuming the state of nature is as Hobbes describes it, a war of all against all, then it is easily comprehendible to find that no person has any reason to trust any other person. And Hobbes supports this, as he says that every person will fear every other person. Yet, Hobbes fails to give any justification or mechanism by which these people, fearing every fellow person, would ever come together with their fellow people in order to discuss, and ultimately create a commonwealth. It can be rightly assumed from Hobbes’s discussion of the psychology of man that, quite to the contrary, a person would quite quickly reject a meeting with others, in fear of their own life. Therefore, Thomas Hobbes succeeds not in setting up a commonwealth, but rather only formulating two distinct and incompatible theories, one of the natural condition and one of the commonwealth. Hobbes’s entire reasoning for the absolute sovereign thus exists simply as a non sequitur, nothing more. Fortunately, Hobbes’s theories on civil government offer themselves up for discussion despite its false link to the natural condition.

Now within a civil society, it is necessary to discuss the powers the Sovereign enjoys within this newly formed commonwealth. Effectively, Hobbes’s Sovereign has absolute power, to do whatever and however, but Hobbes does find it necessary to outline the specific powers, which M.M. Goldsmith has simplified and enumerated for easier understanding. First, the Sovereign has the right to permit or forbid the publication of opinion by speech or writing. Secondly, He may establish all laws, and may judge all issues of law violation through the third power. The Sovereign is also the commander-in-chief, with the ability to decide what military forces are necessary, how much to tax the people to fund the military, and supreme command over all actions. The Sovereign’s fifth power consists of the ability to appoint (and presumably dismiss) all officers of the commonwealth. The punishment power comes in sixth, where Hobbes not only gives the Sovereign the right to punish according to law, but also punish arbitrarily to encourage compliance. Lastly, the right of hierarchy-formation allows the Sovereign to bestow titles and rank upon subjects. (24-25) It is these rights which make the Sovereign absolute, and which allow the sovereign, supposedly, to provide peace and security to the peoples of his commonwealth. Thus, the Sovereign has all the powers necessary to force his subjects into following his every command, especially with the sixth power of punishment.

It is this sixth power that leads to the first probable relationship between the Sovereign and the people. Despite Hobbes’s belief that his dictator will be benevolent and always work for society as a whole and not for himself, it is empirically proven that dictators – absolute sovereigns – will care only about themselves. Firstly, looking at experience and empirical data, as Hobbes would prefer, then it is clearly evident that, at least during the twentieth century, nearly all dictators have not been benevolent sovereigns, and in fact have been quite the opposite. Returning to Provenzo’s quote, proclaiming that dictators are not rational actors, it is clear the history is there to support him. And thus, one argument against the absolute sovereign exists, but it is not the only logical argument. Using Hobbes’s own theories, an argument can be made against a benevolent Sovereign. Hobbes explains, as was discussed earlier, that the prime goal of all “rational†individuals is self-preservation. All people, according to Hobbes’s psychology of man, will look out for themselves before anyone else and will try to better themselves, no matter who is in their path. How, then, is it possible that a person selected out of a group of equals could be any different? And in fact, the Sovereign is no different, and will thus always think of his own interests before the interests of the commonwealth. Without any mechanisms explicitly mentioned by Hobbes to curb this egoism, then it has to be reasonably assumed that Thomas Hobbes’s absolute Sovereign will, like many dictators of the past, not look out for the welfare of the commonwealth, unless it explicitly coincides with his own interests. And that may be where Hobbes gets his justification, that the survival of the commonwealth is of interest to the Sovereign, who does not want to return to the state of nature, but just because the Sovereign takes selfish actions does not necessarily mean the commonwealth will be destroyed. So, then, what relationship does exist between the Sovereign and the subjects, if not a benevolent one? The relationship Hobbes establishes is one of fear. The absolute Sovereign does not have to be voted in to office, he can’t be impeached, he answers to no one, and therefore he does not have to prove himself a legitimate leader. And thus, coupled with the power to punish for crimes or preemptively to keep people in line, it is clear that the subjects of this commonwealth will not feel any safer than they did in the state of nature. Fearful that they may be punished, arbitrarily, at any time just to be an example, these people will listen to the Sovereign and follow his decrees not because they respect him or believe he is a good leader, but because they fear for their own self-preservation, once again the principle rationale for all human actions according to Hobbes. While this does seem to be a better establishment than that of the natural condition, being that now people only have to fear one other person, and not everyone else, the truth is that this form of society simply cannot survive. While fear does create submission, at least at first, it also creates disillusionment and anger towards one’s leader. So while the commonwealth may survive for awhile through this relationship of fear, it cannot survive forever, because eventually people will get fed up, will get angry, and will get violent in an attempt to rid themselves of their brutal dictator. Interestingly enough, Thomas Hobbes actually supports this form of revolt, when he laments that all people maintain their right to self-preservation even after entering into the commonwealth. Therefore, if these people fear their life is in danger, and the danger emanates from the Sovereign, then Hobbes tells us that these people have the right to defend themselves, which could include the murder of the Sovereign. And thus, Hobbes returns the people to a state of nature, because his government fails. Therefore, two relationships, thus far discussed, fail under Hobbes’s own arguments. Firstly, Hobbes’s benevolent dictator just doesn’t hold up to historical scrutiny, which is Hobbes’s preferred way to judge things, and the benevolent dictator does not holdup when the psychology of man is applied to him, Hobbes’s own theories. Secondly, the real relationship that does seem to crop up also fails. A relationship of fear cannot survive for long, and therefore Hobbes leaves people in a war of all against all.

Perhaps, however, there is one final relationship that may ultimately allow Hobbes’s absolute Sovereign to survive. As discussed prior, the Sovereign cannot rule with an iron fist because of revolt, and he cannot act for himself due to the same reason. Furthermore, it could be contended that the Sovereign cannot make any decisions outright and on his own, due to the possibility that the decision will either be seen as a selfish one, putting the people’s lives in danger, or will be seen as a bad decision (with good intentions) which puts people’s lives in danger. Either way, the people will respond out of fear and the Sovereign will cease to be. Thus, it can be rightly assumed that the only way for the Sovereign to survive is to make decisions that do not cause people to fear for their lives. Unfortunately, there is only one true way to make sure this is done, and that is to take actions that the people will the Sovereign to take, because only then can he be sure his actions are supported – and therefore not feared – by the people. This ruler, now acting upon the will of the people, effectively loses his title as “absolute Sovereignâ€Â, which was interpreted as “one who is master of all his subject-slaves; this absolute sovereign is the final decider of all questions in the commonwealth…†(Hampton 54) Thus, Hobbes does not formulate a Sovereign, and thus Hobbes’s commonwealth cannot ever guarantee peace – by his own logic of a democracy never guaranteeing peace. (Hampton 55) In actual practice, however, it could be stated, arguably, that a democracy does provide peace among its peoples. Therefore, the real relationship, which Thomas Hobbes formulates in The Leviathan, is not that of an absolute Sovereign, a monarch, or a dictator, but rather a democracy, where the people effectively rule themselves through the figurehead once known as the Sovereign. The people guide the actions of their ruler; the ruler does not guide the actions of his people.

Hobbes’s theories, however elegant, refuse to coincide and necessarily doom his commonwealth to failure. Ultimately, the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed can be found in one of two theories. If Hobbes’s commonwealth does truly exist, then it is a relationship of authority through fear. However, this society fails due to revolution, and therefore the only true relationship that can occur is that of representation, which Hobbes rejects as impossible, but which his theories wholly support. It is thus determined, through Hobbes’s own writings, that a dictator – an absolute Sovereign – cannot be a good ruler who works for the people, and without ever truly providing peace for the people, they have every right to overthrow their ruler and start anew in the state of nature. Effectively, Hobbes never gives a real alternative to the natural condition that he would actually support.

Works Cited

Dixon, Heath. Thomas Hobbes: “The Theory of Individual Rights, The Leviathanâ€Â. The

Lincoln-Douglas Great Philosopher Library Series. Houston, TX: Communican,

2001.

Goldsmith, M. M. “Hobbes’s ‘Mortall God’: Is There a Fallacy in Hobbes’s Theory of

Sovereignty?†Morris 23-40.

Hampton, Jean. “The Failure of Hobbes’s Social Contract Argument.†Morris 41-58.

Kavka, Gregory S. “Hobbes’s War of All against All.†Morris 1-22.

Morris, Christopher W., ed. The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes,

Locke, and Rousseau. Boston Way, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield

Publishers, Inc., 1999.

Provenzo, Nicholas. “The Irrationality of Treating Dictators as ‘Rational Actors’.â€Â

Capitalism Magazine 21 October 2002. 10 September 2004

.