Ideas of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke on The Relationship Between The Government and Its Citizens

This essay will compare the political ideas of Hobbes and Locke in the context of the relationship between the government of the fictional state of Freilund and its citizens during the K-20 pandemic.

Hobbes view on the relationship between the citizens and the state is marked by notions of obedience to the rule of an absolute monarch, described as “Leviathan”, in order to preserve order and peace in society. Chambers (2009) explains that Hobbes was largely preoccupied with the prospect of conflict withing a society and aimed to find the best way to prevent such conflict. The destruction caused by wars and unrest must be avoided, regardless of any side-effects and even the order imposed by an oppressive ruler is better than the chaos that would arise from a conflict. (Chambers, 2009). Hobbes believes that everyone has an inherent right to do whatever is necessary to secure their own survival. In the absence of any ruler or political authority, there exists a situation known as the state of nature which is inhospitable to the survival of individuals and therefore they must escape it in order to secure their survival. Hobbes contends that peace is essential for human survival and in order to achieve peace, the populace must submit to the political authority of a leader who will act to ensure the preservation of civil society. It is the duty of such a leader to protect the citizens from harm inflicted by other citizens and defend the nation against the threat of foreign invaders and aggressors. Such a leader, Hobbes believes, comes in the form of a monarch, known as “Leviathan”, whose power is absolute. This follows from Hobbes’ assertion that the governance of an absolute monarch, in the form of a “singular will”, will not be influenced by the vested interests of the public will avoid disagreements over policy decisions. Hobbes considers disagreement and a lack of consensus to be the most fundamental obstacle to order. A “diversity of opinion”, coupled with the supposedly belligerent nature of people, leads to conflict and absence of order. (Chambers, 2009)

Hence, a leader may make whatever decisions are necessary to maintain order without incurring public discord and debate, which would act as a hindrance to the survival of the populace. Hobbes does not favour the existence of a separation of powers. Instead, he favours the sovereign being in charge of all areas of the state, thus its rule is absolute and beyond reproach.  On the basis of Hobbes’ views, citizens should always obey the leader so as to preserve order and peace. In applying Hobbes’ views to this situation, citizens should comply with whatever laws, restrictions and regulations are implemented by the government of Freilund to tackle the pandemic. By obeying the leaders without creating discord, citizens will have the best chance of reducing the spread of the virus and consequently reduce the risk and adverse effects on health.

Hobbes’ views on consent and its legitimacy are also especially relevant to this situation. Hobbes believes that the sovereign governs for everyone, and therefore there must be a societal agreement between everyone regarding the legitimacy of the sovereign and their leadership. This is also known as a social contract. It is not merely a contract between the people and the sovereign or vice versa, it applies to all. Hobbes outlines two criteria that must be fulfilled in order for consent to be valid. Those are the absence of external physical impediments and the requirement that an action occurs as a result of a person’s own free will. Psychological impediments do not qualify as an impediment in this situation and thus an emotion such as fear is not seen as a barrier to acting freely and giving legitimate consent. In this given situation of the pandemic, it is likely that individuals are experiencing fear as a result of concern for their health and livelihoods, as well as those of others. Hobbes would not consider this an obstacle to free consent and therefore when citizens obey the laws and follow the guidelines, they are doing so because of their own free will. Hence, the citizens of Freilund can legitimately consent to the authority of the government and obey all the laws which it implements.

The obligation of the citizens to obey the laws and follow the advice is absolute, with one minor, limited exception. Hobbes provides that in cases where the government’s directly threatens the lives of the people, a rebellion against the monarch is deemed acceptable. On this basis, if the government of Freilund were to endanger someone’s life, then they could justly rebel. One cannot legitimately resist and rebel against the government merely because they disagree with its ideology. However, if one does so anyway and it results in their life being threatened, the rebellion could then be justifiable simply because of the threat to life. Even if someone’s initial reason for resisting the state may have been illegitimate, the rebellion becomes legitimate if it creates a situation where their lives are threatened. Hence, if a dissident group opposed the health regulations and disobeyed them and is later interned or threatened with execution, they may continue to resist the state, even though they should not have disobeyed in the first place.

Locke’s views on the relationship between the people and the government are drastically different to those of Hobbes. Locke takes an optimist view of human nature and contends that in the state of nature, all people are born free and equal and can peacefully co-exist with each other. The state of nature precedes political society, but does not precede morality. There do, however, arise certain inconveniences in the state of nature which are: the possibility of occasional wars and the implementation of excessively harsh punishments on those who break the laws. Locke outlines his belief in the existence of natural law, under which all people are guaranteed certain fundamental inalienable rights, namely “lives, liberties and estates”. Locke further contends that it is favourable for individuals to form a social contract and create a political society where these rights are guaranteed and there exists mechanisms which provide for the aversion and resolution of such problems which may arise in the state of nature. 

Locke asserts that the exercise of political power is only legitimate in so far as people consent to it. People cannot be legitimately subjected to the rule of a political power without their consent. Locke considers consent to be legitimate to the extent that it is rational to consent to something. In assessing whether consent is rational or not, it must be considered whether consenting to a political power will protect one’s rights. The mere promise of security and protection is not considered sufficient to render consent legitimate; the ideal of justice must also be ensured. There are certain inalienable rights which one cannot legitimately waive and cannot legitimately be infringed upon by the state. On this basis, individuals cannot legitimately consent to slavery as it would pose a threat to their very survival and hence is irrational. It would be meaningless for an individual to consent to a government which leaves them with fewer rights than they would otherwise have.

Locke favours civil government as the best alternative to the state of nature. This entails a state where the citizens hold ultimate and final sovereignty because all those who exercise power are answerable to the people. In civil society, citizens have a role in influencing the policy implemented by the state as they are responsible for electing those who create the laws. This involves the existence and operation of a rotating legislature whose members are elected by the people. The organs of the state operate within the separation of powers, the legislative, executive and judicial branches each having an independent role. This ensures that the state operates within the rule of law, meaning that the law applies to everyone and nobody is exempt from obeying the law. As the laws also apply to the members of the legislature themselves, it reduces the likelihood of corruption because those who make the laws can be prosecuted for breaching them quite alike any other member of society. Similarly, there are reduced motives to implement laws which unjustly curtail liberty, as those who create the laws would be infringing on their own liberties, as well as that of the people at large. In a situation where the people elect representatives to parliament who make laws, they are indirectly giving their consent for the laws to be created. As the regulations introduced by the Freilund government are ostensibly intended to protect the health of everyone in the country, it could be argued that even though these laws restrict liberty, they can be legitimately consented to. Thus the people should obey the regulations so long as they do not disproportionately infringe on their rights.

Locke outlines that political power entails the right to create and enforce laws as well as defending the state against aggression from foreign powers, with the intention of protecting the interests of the populace. Locke further believes that the only legitimate aims of the government are the defence of the liberty and property of the people. If the state acts against the citizens, then its conduct is illegitimate. It could be argued that the as of the virus poses a sufficiently serious threat to the welfare of the people of Freilund, actions taken to mitigate its adverse effects are legitimate as they will protect the welfare of the citizens. If, however, a political leader were to act despotically and unjustly deprive citizens of their liberty and property, the citizens are entitled to withdraw their consent, remove the government and replace it. On this basis, if the Freilund government were to exploit the pandemic as an opportunity to act tyrannically and deprive the people of their fundamental rights, it would be acceptable for the people to oust the government and replace it.

According to Locke, people not only have a negative duty to refrain from harming other people and interfering with their property but also have positive duties to punish those who violate the laws of nature, in order to promote the common good. On this basis, the people of Freilund must refrain from engaging in any actions which would contribute to the spread of the virus as it could adversely affect people’s health. Furthermore, citizens would also have a duty to punish those who break the laws as they would be endangering the health of everyone else and hence pose a threat to survival and stability.

In contrast with Hobbes, Locke does not believe that the existence of a wide range of different opinions in a society will pose a fundamental threat to stability.  However, Locke’s tolerance of people’s beliefs is not absolute and he does provide for some groups to be excluded if they undermine the very basis on which civil society can function.. In line with this, the Freilund government may be able to take action against groups who undermine and interfere with society’s efforts to tackle the pandemic and who put their personal and business interests ahead of the common good. This is, however, a very limited scope for the restriction of dissent, in comparison to Hobbes virtually absolute intolerance of discourse.

Bibliography

1. Chambers, S. (2009), ''Who shall judge?' Hobbes, Locke and Kant on the construction on public reason', Ethics & Global Politics, vol. 2, no. 4.
2. Hobbes, T. 1996 [1651]. Leviathan, edited by Richard Tuck. Cambridge University Press.
3. Locke, J. 1960 [1689]. Two Treatises of Government, edited by Peter Laslett. Cambridge University Press.
4. Locke, J. (2000) [1689], A Letter Concerning Toleration, Infomotions, Inc., South Bend. Availablefrom: ProQuest Ebook Central. [9 November 2020].
5. Oyekan, A. (2010), 'Human Nature and Social Order: A Comparative Critique of Hobbes and Locke', Thought and Practice, vol. 2, no. 1.