The Democratic Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes is widely seen as a man who dedicated his life towards defending the indefensible, the totalitarianism of a dictatorship modelled in the form of a state with almost unlimited authority. He was, as they say, a monarchist whose only answer to problems was the employment of fear. However, was it not the same author who wrote that the state is and should be the result of man coming together to establish a community based on consent? For Hobbes, the state is the consequence of a democratic awakening of the people, interested in protecting themselves and at the same time, the rest of us.

The state, old Thomas says, must abide by the contract agreed upon by and between people. To do otherwise would be to break the contract that led to there being a state created in the first case. The state commands maximum authority, but it does so thanks to a radical instance of democracy. Of course, Hobbes did claim that dictatorship to a ruthless point was legitimate and necessary for the preservation of peace and the possibility of harmony. Would he continue to do so four centuries on, as I write, is another question that perhaps we cannot possibly know. This position, however, must not ignore the fact that the development of such a state for Hobbes was rooted in democracy itself. To understand Hobbes - to completely appreciate his work and be able to boast that one understands his arguments - we need to first and foremost comprehend the arguments of the philosopher on his own terms, as too often others try hard not to do. 

Some point out that Hobbes argued the state should be ready to use ‘the sword’, or force, in order to moderate potential conflicts between people. It is true: Hobbes absolutely did call for a state which was more than prepared to dish out punishment to prevent citizens from breaking their contract. Is that not the same force that is dealt those who do not submit to the laws of our modern democracies? Hobbes simply argued that because the state had come to be through grassroots democracy, according to a social-contract that was rational and aimed to prevent our lives and our interests from being invaded and infringed upon, it would be absurd and unjust to allow for such a contract to be broken by individuals who choose to act in their own way, outside of the contract signed by all, and when they benefited from it since birth.

It goes without saying that Thomas Hobbes was not a ‘Liberal Democratic’ thinker in any meaningful sense. He does advocate a totalitarian regime where everybody has a political obligation to support it unless the state fails to meet its own political obligation, that which arose out of the social-contract decided in the first place. But at the same time - he is a democratic thinker exactly because Hobbes shared the belief that people do and should consent to the government which dares to act in their name. Nevertheless, at the same time, the sovereign authority too has a responsibility to uphold its own side of the contract, promising to protect the political structure which helps to preserve life and security of people on earth. In other words, the British thinker holds that individuality should be cherished and is at the centre of his viewpoint. It was separate individuals who voluntarily decided to work together for the benefit of all – not a state, not one man, or a minority group of men – that decided the creation of a Leviathan would be witnessed by the world. 

It seems then that Thomas Hobbes was far more democratic a thinker than his enemies would wish

the people of our planet to believe.  At the root, the very foundation of Hobbes’s argument is the belief that the people should rule and that the people do rule, because it was they, and nobody else, that gave us the state or the ‘Leviathan’ in the first place.

The Morality of Machiavelli's 'The Prince'

Niccolò Machiavelli has been called a 'great moral philosopher', a 'civic realist', a 'republican concerned with liberty' and a 'teacher of immorality'. His legacy is contested and controversial. It is basically divided between two positions: those who see Machiavelli as a monster attracted to the idea of using violence merely for the sake of violence, and those who think Machiavelli understood the nature of politics better than anyone else ever did before him.

Often readers take one look at his most famous book The Prince and want to tremble with indignation over the seeming indifference to dictatorship, ruthlessness and treachery that Machiavelli appears to defend and invoke. For example, he comments with no sense of guilt that "a prince must not worry if he incurs reproach for his cruelty so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal". These sort of honest but apparently brutal statements are not rare and run throughout Machiavelli's writings, leaving the thinker open to attack by the moralistic who would declare him a 'doctor of the damned'. Indeed, the Italian philosopher opposes the idea that political leaders should allow abstract ethics (such as those derived from religion) to be used as a guide for government. In another one of his many frank statements, warning of principled 'goodness', Machiavelli says; "The prince who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous". In other words, it is irresponsible for political leaders to always act according to abstract moral code because such a principled stance can easily be undermined by those who would be devious and use cunning so as to challenge authority in search of power, thereby threatening the stability that a citizenry depends on.

As such, Niccolò Machiavelli is a man not without political ideals or ethics. Political stability is his ultimate political value; for without political stability - people have nothing. It is not shopkeepers who keep an invading army at bay. That is achieved far more effectively by an organised military power. The rule of law, helping to ensure order, is not the work of moralistic teachings by the common man or by good hearted priests. The latter is established and protected by the power of the government, and to use the Florentine's remarks, 'strengthened by a dread of punishment that is always effective'. If Machiavelli's arguments come across as ruthless, abnormally wicked and thriving in violence, it is because he believes a society without political stability is no society at all. Without a willingness on the part of the state to use force to protect the community, a citizenry may suffer, and, that citizenry will sooner feel the wrath of death than the joy of life if the political leader is strangled by a moral understanding that makes him afraid to use violence, or do what is necessary to preserve stability. Consequently, Machiavelli advocates 'immorality' to protect the supremely moral value of political stability.

The character or form of an action then is not what troubles Niccolò. Those who would allow civilians to bleed only to keep holding abstract moral ideas high in their minds are regarded by Machiavelli as great enemies of mankind. It is the consequences of one's actions that for him one should finally be judged by. If violence is reasonably expected to protect the security of a nation - that violence is not only to be considered justified, but should also be congratulated and welcomed by the truly moral people of the world. And if one is blind to the often chaotic and unpredictable ways of the world - ignorant of history, of men;"fickle, liars, and deceivers who shun danger and are greedy for profit" - then a dangerous, disturbing and perhaps ultimately immoral path, will be paved behind but an appearance of love and kindness.

It is important to stress that The Prince was written specifically for political leaders. It was not intended as a manual for gangsters, terrorists, or to be cited as justification for breaking the law. On the contrary, obedience to the rule of law is absolutely central to Machiavelli's understanding of political stability. The government has a unique responsibility to protect its citizens, defend and enforce its borders, and make sure order does not become disorderly. Government is the last line of defence. Due to that fact, Machiavelli argues it needs to be flexible precisely because a government which does not adapt or change its course to reflect reality, could lead to an end where peace, security, and progress, is neither to be found, nor ever witnessed again.