Power and Governance

Power and Governance Hobbes versus Locke. Realist versus Liberal. A pessimist generalizing all humans as naturally selfish versus an optimist who believes humans are innately good-natured and cooperative. Where does power come from? You might think that the famous theorists Thomas Hobbes and John Locke would have different and clashing answers to this seemingly simple question. After all, one of them thinks that people should live in complete subservience to a sovereign power while the other believes that the government should be subject to the will of the citizens. In truth however, their answers are shockingly similar. Power comes from the people. How that power originates, how it should be utilized, and how it ultimately affects the people who wield, enforce, and submit to it are where these two theorists disagree. And through this disagreement is where different models of power or government come into focus. After first reading Hobbes’ “Leviathan”, I would not have thought that he would propose that power would come from the people. According to him, people are supposed to be ruled by a sovereign power that they have no say over. However, after taking time to reflect on this, I was left with the question of how the sovereign came into power to begin with. People have to consent to be ruled by an all-powerful governing body. People are the ones who have to create or elect this power to govern them. Since Hobbes makes the argument that all men are equal in both body and mind, there is not one person who can declare himself king over others. This “king”, or more so this idea of king, has to originate from more than just a single person. Consenting adults have to be willing to forego their natural rights and liberties in exchange for safety and the opportunity to rid themselves of the state of nature. Therefore, ultimate power originates from the people who create the ultimate power. A key term in the previous sentence is “originates”, for after this occurs, sovereign power no longer lies with the people. It is wielded by what they have created. Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government” describes a less complex theory of where power originates from. Or perhaps I only find it less complex because I am so familiar with its ideas since those ideas are a large part of what the United States was founded on. He clearly expresses support for the idea that people should create their own government in order to free themselves from the state of nature. However, unlike Hobbes, this governing body does not hold absolute power over the people. More so, the people are the ones with power over the government. The people should be vigilant and keep their government in check. To further reduce this institution’s power, Locke’s optimal governing model would have three separate but equal branches much like the United States’ government today. This initial theory led to America’s system of checks and balances. Thus, while this form of government does hold sovereign power, it is only through consent and a social contract with the people that it is able to keep this sovereign power. For if this governing body were to ever completely lose the trust of the public, the people reserve the right to revolt and establish a new government as they see fit, according to Locke. This is a clear indicator that Locke believes that power originates from the people.
Locke and Hobbes have conflicting views on what the state of nature would be. Power is ultimately born from the state of nature, because if man was not in a state of nature there would be no reason to establish a governing power. Considering this, it is important to analyze both theorists’ views and which one seems more likely. At first, Hobbes’ view seemed preposterous to me while Locke’s seemed much more feasible. I thought this because Hobbes came to his conclusion on human nature by deciding that since humans contain identical parts, they are all the same and can be studied like a machine. This seemed incomprehensible to me. I then realized that this is probably due to the culture that I was raised and live in today. In the United States, you are taught from a young age to stand out and be independent, and that everyone is unique. There is no way that everyone is the same, and to suggest that, especially about a specific group of people, would be considered generalizing which is considered offensive in the US. I then tried to take a more objective view by thinking about how people are raised in other regions of the world. Some Asian countries came to mind where kids are taught from a young age to strive to be dependent on each other, not stand out, and that being unique is not a valued attribute. Basically, that everybody should be the same. Would students in China immediately write off Hobbes for how he came to his conclusion? I doubt they would as fast as I did. Therefore, I have determined that I had agreed with Locke’s theory on human nature merely because it aligns with what I have been raised to believe while Hobbes’ theory goes against what I was raised to believe. This led me to give Hobbes’ theory some serious thought and consideration. Subsequently, I have concluded that the question of human nature can never be answered without first resolving the classic psychological argument of nature versus nurture. Is Hobbes correct that since humans have the same parts, they will all turn out similar if not influenced by outside forces or teachings? That, like all other mammals on this planet, in a raw state of nature, humans are only concerned with self-preservation and promoting the continued existence of their species through reproducing? Or is Locke more accurate suggesting that the majority of humans in the state of nature would see the benefit of mutual cooperation? And that humans are naturally born moral and good? Without a definitive answer to the argument of nature versus nurture, we will never know for certain. Nevertheless, when the question of who is more persuasive is framed in this manor, I believe that Hobbes’ argument actually holds more water than Locke’s. Or perhaps I am subconsciously a cynical pessimist similar to Hobbes and this is why his view seems more likely to me. Though logically, it makes sense that, broken down into our rawest and most primitive form and in a state of nature, human beings would act like all other mammals and behave in a similar manor. Why would we be any different? An argument could be that because humans have such a higher brain capacity than any other mammal, this would cause us to act and evolve differently. This could be true, however, this argument has little to do with basic innate instincts that we are born with. When broken down, human’s instincts are not much different than every other animal’s instincts. The instinct to gather sustenance for continued existence, to avoid danger for continued existence, and to seek out sexual partners so that our species may continue to exist. All of these behaviors do not require thinking on our behalf, they are biologically hardwired to our brains when we are born. All of these behaviors have a common theme; self-preservation, which is a key idea in Hobbes’ theory on the state of nature. The models of government that would be ideal for Hobbes and Locke are different. But first, we should look at what main purposes these two theorists believed government should serve. Locke thought government should be created to protect the natural rights of the people. This is a broad explanation of government purpose. More specifically, the largest reason a government should be established, according to Locke, is to protect people’s property, of which he was a big fan. Of course, to absolve himself from suspicion of being a greedy materialist, Locke specifies that a person’s body is their original property. And due to his belief that the government’s power should originate from the consent of the people, some form of democracy would be the obvious ideal government for Locke. Hobbes main purpose for the creation of government is to instill order among its citizens and demand submissive behavior. This is due to Hobbes grim outlook on the state of nature. In his eyes, without some force or power to punish people for wrongdoings, humans would be in a perpetual state of war. Hobbes also thought that the sovereign power should be able to act quickly and decisively, without the slow and tedious process of endless negotiation. Therefore, a monarchy would be an ideal form of government for Hobbes. However, this is not to say that these two would not be able to at least agree on a suitable form of government. What is interesting about Hobbes is that as long as the government has sovereign authority and protects its citizens, it does not matter who is running it. Therefore, while not ideal due to its lack of swift decisive authority and central voice, Hobbes would agree with Locke that a democracy is a sufficient model of government. Power is a concept created in the human mind. Ultimately, it is people who have created these institutions to exert power over each other. While, on the surface, it may seem that Locke and Hobbes are on opposite sides with regards to power, the fact is that the only difference between their two theories lies with the transfer of power. For Hobbes, once a governing body is created, power is transferred from the people to this sovereign. For Locke, power is kept by the people even after creation of the governing body. But for both theorists, power initially originates from the people who want out of the state of nature and choose to consent to a social contract with a governing power.