The 1789 Discourse: Hobbes and Populism
De Agostini Picture Library
As the U.S. reverberates from the coronavirus and racial justice protests, many have grown skeptical of the role of the state. Even before the pandemic, populist parties and politicians have been on the rise. An effect of populism has been the deterioration of the key institutions that maintain the state. This all indicates that there has been a growing discontent attitude towards the very idea of the state. The state has been the defining feature that politics have revolved around since the Treaty of Westphalia and now there is a belief amongst some that this paradigm is being threatened.
However the recent crises and the degrading effect of populism show that the stability of the state is needed more than ever. To get a more comprehensive understanding of why, we should look back at the thinker behind the idea of the “state.”
Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan gives a vivid description of the Biblical monster that is the state. Hobbes uses such descriptive and terrifying language to describe the state because of the world he lives in. Hobbes witnessed the terror of the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War that would give rise to the idea of the state. These political and religious conflicts devastated the continent of Europe, leaving behind death and chaos. Yet these conflicts also left behind the legacy of the state, a sphere of sovereignty, which boasts political control of its borders that exists alongside other equal sovereignties.
“Leviathan” is written in a terrifying manner and prose because it comes from a terrifying dystopia that has revealed the horrifying nature of man. From this arises the state that would suppress the “nasty and brutish” nature of man in the name of peace and order.
While Hobbes may not be as cynical of human nature as some think he is, he was still skeptical of the state of human nature. Hobbes argued that we, as human beings, can recognize some basic truths about nature and life. We can recognize that war is immoral and we seek peace in an effort to avoid it. Through this, we can see that the “Laws of Nature” revolve around us not treating others the way we do not want to be treated. However, there is a darker aspect to humanity as well.
Hobbes wrote that “the life of a man [is] solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” This unpleasant reality shows the inadequacy of human nature in bringing forth a safe and comfortable existence. Hobbes believed that humans are fundamentally selfish and that our inner demons are only kept in check by the law and the fear of punishment. Society is needed if we wish to avoid a short life defined by chaos and brutality. The state uses it mechanisms, including the ever popular monopoly on violence, to keep the populace safe from its own sinful and corrupt nature.
Hobbes was not the originator of the idea of the “social contract.” As Dr. David Runciman points out, this idea existed before him and will continue to be developed after him. However, Hobbes’s “Leviathan” still argues that we as peoples bond together to form societies and empower sovereigns to rule over us. Societal power and institutional control are instilled and legitimized in sovereignty by man because man desires and needs peace.
Man fundamentally seeks to avoid the chaos and war that Hobbes saw envelop Europe during the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War, but is unable unable to do so because of his predisposed predilection towards greed and violence. While we may desire peace, we also see nothing wrong with killing to avoid getting killed. It is this fear that causes us to legitimize a sovereign and its rule over us.
So who or what should be our sovereign? Hobbes preferred a monarchy, but found a parliament acceptable as well. This means that in our modern world, a democratically elected president or parliament can be our legitimate sovereign. This stresses the importance of “legitimacy.”
In “Leviathan,” Hobbes stresses that the sovereign needs legitimacy for his regime to succeed. While part of this legitimacy may be based on how the sovereign comes to power, Hobbes would that legitimacy comes solely from the state and sovereign’s ability to govern and protect those who have consented to be governed.
Hobbes believed that the state and sovereign’s power depends on its powers of legislation, adjudication, enforcement, taxation and war-making. These “essential rights of sovereignty” must not be divided- or government paralysis or a civil war will ensue.
In our modern world, this means that the ability of our public and democratic institutions need to be maintained in the face of populist opposition. Populist politicians and parties seek to take power from the institutions of state and give it to the people. While this may sound appealing and actually increases democratic representation, it does not result in stable governance.
By eroding institutions and giving power to the people, populism undermines the state and divides the “essential rights of sovereignty.” By giving power away from the state and sovereign and to the people, populism is allowing for the masses to indulge their own destructive natures when normally their dangerous greed and reactionary nature of man is kept in check by the state.
By giving the levers of the state entirely to the people, the state can no longer effectively keep these dangerous and untamed passions in check. This is why when populist leaders get into power, they often erode democratic norms.
While one can make the argument that populism is an attempt to make society more democratic and equitable, the reality is that populism allows for the fear and greed that is meant to be kept in check by the state to be loosened. In entire nations, religious and sectarian violence have only increased under the eyes of populist politicians. In India, persecution of religious minorities, particularly Indian Muslims, have gone unchecked as Modhi and the BJP have only stoked the embers and flames of Hindu nationalism. In Turkey, religious nationalists have been able to move the country ever closer to one resembling a religious dictatorship. In Israel, the ruling party’s alliance with populist Jewish nationalist parties have prevented any meaningful inroads to peace to advance.
Even in California, the state’s initiative and referendum system that are based on populist desires for a more democratic government have done the opposite. By stripping power away from politicians and giving it to the people, these populist reformers have made it even less democratic. Authority has been disseminated from leaders who were democratically chosen by the people and bestowed upon corporations and interest groups that have the resources to conduct expensive ballot campaigns. This has made many to describe the state as being ungovernable since people consistently vote to both lower taxes and increase spending.
In an attempt to become more democratic, populists have eradicated the powers that belong to sovereign democratic institutions and allowed for the masses to indulge the worst of their natures. Populism appeals to the individual’s greed for lower taxes and lofty promises, along with man’s irrational fear of others. This leads to government paralysis at best and sectarian persecution and violence at worse. The only way this can be resolved is if the masses once again agree to the social contract with the sovereign that they need to be governed to be kept safe from the worst of their nature.
