Introduction
Sovereignty is the ability of states to make laws and shape policies in their territories. Territories must obey the sovereignty in force and fulfill obligations by complying with laws and regulations. Different perspectives on the power of sovereignty determine how public policy operates to legislative and executive powers. The views of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke differ in who owns sovereignty and how its desires are translated into legislation.
Discussion
Thomas Hobbes is one of the founders of a strand of political philosophy gradually realized in a theory of state sovereignty. According to Hobbes, sovereignty is the only source of power. The sovereign’s power is unlimited, and the state governs all institutions. In particular, Murphy and Stoica-Constantin (2015, p. 222) point out that Hobbes applies this rule even to acts of violence. Violence is permissible as long as state sovereignty governs the use of violence. Consequently, Hobbes concludes that individuals (or even a single person) must have absolute sovereignty and that the rest of the citizens must cede some of their rights (Eribo, 2021). Moreover, ceding all sovereignty to a group of persons allows for the security of citizens.
Hobbes believes that absolute sovereignty must control any government (civil or judicial) because only in this way can the establishment of an actual state be achieved. However, he also states that God is above the state, which does not mean placing sovereignty in the hands of the church (Tarlton, 2002). Hobbes is skeptical that power can be incomplete or that sovereignty expresses a wrong or strategically incorrect view (Çoban Balci, 2020). According to Tarlton (2002, p. 64), Hobbes’ views rely on “lutist and despotical” ideas, which provide the basis for defining absolute power. Thus, in Hobbes’ view, sovereignty is concentrated in one person or a small group of persons with unlimited power, based on their desires, over the state’s citizens.
John Locke has a somewhat different view of sovereignty, including the absolute type. John Locke, like Hobbes, contributed to the development of political philosophy by focusing on the ideas of liberalism. It is primarily expressed in his ideas about the continuity of consciousness and the possibility of personal transformation through the experience of one experience or another. Consequently, these ideas influenced his vision of sovereignty, its varieties, and government mechanism.
Locke draws on social contract theory when he speaks of the polity’s power. According to his ideas, sovereignty is a product of the traditional understanding of the state (Gencer, 2010). Through the principle of separation of powers, Locke presents his division of sovereignty: the absolute belongs to God, and the relative is divided into branches. This division of branches can be seen in the idea of the division of state power, which Locke was the first to propose. According to Gencer (2010, p. 334), this division is most noticeable “in the etymological and semantic interrelationship of community, common-law and common-wealth.” Locke thus distinguishes between the potential and actual nature of sovereignty. The potential is concentrated in the hands of the government, which has the function of executing legislation; the actual one is in the hands of the community, which follows the laws for the common good.
In addition, Locke relies more on the concentration of the absolute in the hands of God. In this idea, he is similar to Hobbes: both philosophers give an essential place to the church. However, while Locke is more respectful of religion’s influence on the formation of society, Hobbes suggests that the church is in charge. According to Murphy and Stoica-Constantin (2015, p. 222), “Hobbes had a conservative position, while Locke… had a more radical, liberal outlook,” based on which Locke determined that one person handled the court. In addition, Locke focused entirely on the fact that the supreme power belongs to the people based on a social contract (Eribo, 2021). It is one of the main differences between Locke and Hobbes-they assess the value of the social contract differently. These differences in views of power prompt a study of Locke and Hobbes’ views of the influence of the social contract.
For Locke, the contract is a way of investing his duties to absolute and relative sovereignty in obtaining property. For Hobbes, on the other hand, the social contract obliges one to give one’s rights to sovereignty that has a better idea of morality, good and evil (Sasan, 2021). The difference in views of absolute sovereignty is expressed in the perception of the social contract, the interpretation of the supremacy of power, and those who should constitute the state stronghold.
Conclusion
John Locke’s and Thomas Hobbes’ ideas on the definition and operation of absolute sovereignty differ. The differences are firstly expressed in who has absolute sovereignty: Locke defines it as part of the duties of God, while Hobbes defines it as one or more persons at the head of public policy. Second, Locke says that supreme power belongs to the people and that dividing power into branches is the most rational way for the state to function. At the same time, Hobbes believes that all power must be concentrated in one hand, and the people must give up some of their rights. In addition, Hobbes presents conservative ideas akin to despotism and violence, while Locke relies on liberal beliefs in public policy. Finally, the social contract, for Hobbes, is an instrument of transferring citizens’ rights to power, while for Locke, it is an opportunity to optimize his benefits.
Reference List
Eribo, N. M. (2021) ‘The Concept of Sovereignty in Political Philosophy’, Zamfara Journal of Politics and Development, 2(2). Web.
Gencer, B. (2010) ‘Sovereignty and the separation of powers in John Locke’, European Legacy, 15(3), 323-339.
Çoban Balci, A. (2020) ‘A review on freedom and authority in theories of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes’, Fiscaoeconomia, 4(1), 132-158.
Murphy, A. and Stoica-Constantin, A. (2015) ‘Sovereignty: constitutional and historical aspects’, Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov, 8(57), 219-226. Web.
Sasan, J. M. V. (2021) ‘The social contract theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke: comparative analysis’, International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities, 9(1), 34-45.
Tarlton, C. D. (2002) ‘The despotical doctrine of Hobbes, part II: aspects of the textual substructure of tyranny in “Leviathan’, History of Political Thought, 23(1), 61-89. Web.