Of all the great political thinkers, few were more unique than Thomas Hobbes and Niccoló Machiavelli. Hobbes believed that the states should be authoritarian and ensure stability. In contrast, Machiavelli asserted that the sovereign ruler should possess unlimited power and was justified in any action to protect that power. Accepting this view of the state as reality, he assigned no good or bad to the rule of the state. Though their conclusions differ, they do have some similarities. What is the implication of their philosophies on modern government?
The State of Man and Nature
The two philosophers shared similar feelings about the premises underlying society. First, they agreed about the state of nature in which man exists. According to Hobbes, the absence of a control authority leads to “a condition of war of everyone against everyone…and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies…therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to everything endures, there can be no security to any man.” Absent government, Hobbes’s society is anarchic; every man protects himself and uses any tool to protect himself.
Machiavelli and Hobbes share similar views on the nature of man; Hobbes observes the three reasons for man’s quarrels: competition, difference, and glory. Since man fights wars for gain, safety, or reputation, Hobbes infers from this that man is inherently selfish in his action. Machiavelli senses that lacking order, man is violent. A prince needs cruelty “for he will be more merciful than those who, from excess of tenderness, allow disorders to arise, from whence spring bloodshed.” Therefore, the sovereign has to guard against a very hostile populace. These similarities lead both to draw relatively different conclusions about the construction of government.
Machiavelli’s state of nature exists as one of perpetual war that a sovereign constantly fights. Machiavelli divides nature into two camps “because there is no comparison whatever between an armed and disarmed man, it is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willingly one is unarmed; or that any unarmed man will remain safe among armed servants…it is not possible for them to act well together.” A sovereign checks this state by maintaining a balance between both sides and owning the order necessary to preserve this balance.
The Role of Government
Both philosophers disagreed over the role of a government. Machiavelli believed that the goal of a sovereign ruler should be the maintenance of power. Unlike Hobbes, who focuses on power as a means to an end, Machiavelli believes it to be the end in and of itself since “a prince should aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will always be praised by everyone.” Machiavelli’s prince can maintain order by imposing his will on a conquered society; without power lying in the hands of the individual, man becomes subservient to the sovereign ruler.
Hobbes, however, draws a different conclusion to the goal of a society. Hobbes focuses on stability as the role of government, and power as the means to achieve that result. The sovereign’s end “is the peace and defense of them all, and whosoever has right to the end has right to the means, and also of the hindrances and disturbances of the same, and to do whatsoever he shall think necessary to be done.” In essence, Hobbes feels that absent this stabilizing effect, society plunges back into the anarchy.
More importantly, the two philosophers disagreed on the methodology of forming society’s government. Focusing strongly on the legitimacy of governorship, Hobbes believed strongly in a contractual system between people. In this contract, man “voluntarily transfers his right or renounces it, in consideration of some right reciprocally transferred to himself…and of the voluntary acts of every man the object is some good to himself.” In this system, the people voluntarily give up their rights in order to allow the sovereign to achieve some measure of stability. Hobbes states. “Because the right to make him sovereign is by covenant only of one to another, and not of him to any of them, there can be no breach of covenant on the part of the sovereign.” The sovereign does not break the contract out of greed or glory, and the society achieves stability.
Machiavelli felt that the ruler should take those steps deemed necessary to preserve his reign. Believing that the prince must rule through two kinds of fear, “one internal as regards his subjects, and one external as regards foreign powers,” the prince maintains order and stability while the people obey every wish. Fearing tyrannicide, Machiavelli also proposed, “above all a prince must endeavor in every action to obtain fame.” Not only do the people fear him, but legitimize and love him as well; they follow without question.
Implications & Conclusion
These similarities and differences lead to some important implications about the nature of government. Since both agree that the nature of man is inherently dangerous, a ruler has justification to enact laws to protect the people from each other and danger. Thus, he can increase his own power through a powerful police or militia in order “to prevent” society from collapsing. Second, Hobbes’ contractual system forces people to give up their individual rights for the sovereign to rule successfully. This frees rulers to exercise power in their own interest and ignore the individuals and over society as a whole. However, Hobbes believed that man’s nature is enough of a safeguard to prevent abuses from a ruler. He stated, “No man can transfer, or lay down, his right to save himself from death, wounds, and imprisonment…For man by nature chooses the lesser evil, which is danger of death in resisting, rather than the greater, which is certain and present death in not resisting.” If a ruler seizes too much power and begins to deprive his people of their safety, then they have the right to resist all of his laws and oppression.
Machiavellian rulers use any means necessary to acquire, maintain, and expand their power. Eventually, many rulers may see themselves over the state and people. As a ruler gains more power, he may become transfixed by it and lies to or kills those who would endanger his rule. Hobbes’ system, while theoretically more benevolent than Machiavelli’s, can still lead to a government that abuses its people. Without a doubt, Machiavelli’s system inherently leads to an abusive and powerful government. Both philosophies, while owning some similarities, lead to different conclusions about the role of a sovereign in governing the masses.
No comments:
Post a Comment