(Student Name)

(Department Name and School) 

(Course Code

(Course Name)

(Professor Name)

(Date Due, 202X)

Introduction

The Author, James Hobbes', writer the book series, “The Leviathan” argues that the sole answer to political disorder and ensuing chaos is absolutism (Hobbes, 2008). 

Thesis Statement 

Political absolutism is a form of governance that establishes a supreme ruler, or sovereign,  called an omnipotent with unparalleled power, such as complete control over its citizens and state authorities. Hobbes views this as essential to the preservation of social stability. Through implementing the means of a social contract, which protects individual interests and  prioritizes the state's collective interest over personal desires, the central power can aim to avoid political unrest whilst overseeing proper governance for its citizens. To substantiate Hobbes’ claims, this essay shall investigate his justification for authoritarian rule as an indispensable approach to avoiding political turmoil. It will examine the shortcomings of other government models that favor democracy or decentralized systems.

Abstract 

The social contract is broken down into Hobbes’ understanding of the social compact and its function in formulating governmental power, as well as the reasons why such a compact would initially be created. Hobbes assesses the factors required for a fruitful social pact, where individual interests are safeguarded. It is imperative for the ruler to maintain his end of the bargain as well (Hobbes, 2008). This essay utilizes Hobbes' interpretations of political domination and social agreement in order to scrutinize how well political despotism has been able to preserve constancy as well as safeguard citizens' rights (Hobbes, 2008). Hobbes’ political absolutism can recognize other schools of thought pertaining to the relationship between governmental power structure and civilization.

Concept of Mankind 

At the core of Hobbes’ claim lies his concept of mankind as a source of disorder and conflict in itself. Hobbes is interested in human nature, he is interested in pessimistic human nature and it is based on radical individualism. Hobbes describes a ‘state of nature’ or natural condition in which people subsist with no central authority or regime and pursue personal aspirations at the expense of communal welfare. He contends that a natural inclination towards self-interests, which include individual safety and prosperity, places people in a never-ending state of hostility towards their peers. Furthermore, Hobbes contends that the outside world is populated by foreign objects with their independent existence (Hobbes, Ch. I, 2008). These external objects have been observed to collide with human internal senses, as they press themselves against our sensory faculties and challenge them. He’s trying to demystify general human knowledge as conflated to be in positions of control.

          The bellicose nature of humans is caused by three primary war-like tendencies driven by conflict, in the absence of a political community. First, through competition, individuals  compete over the same objects of desire, which are sometimes scarce. Hobbes explains, “we have to fight for it, to achieve that object of desire, and we end up killing each other” in this instinctively human drive (Hobbes, 2008). Second, under diffidence some may wish to preemptively strike at potential enemies, if they grow strong enough to subdue others (Hobbes, 2008). There is an unavoidable concern that anyone could be a potential enemy, which will lead into harming someone. Third, the effects of glory entail that some people are conceited, and can overestimate their own abilities (Hobbes, 2008). In doing so, other people are targeted because he or she finds pleasure or glory in subduing another.

          Hence, the establishment of a productive society is rendered impossible, as Hobbes states, “In such conditions, there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth… no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and [therefore] continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XIII 2008). Hobbes forewarns a society such as this as concerning because it falls to anarchy and assault without central authority. Essentially, a ‘savage’ natural state is comprised - instances of turmoil, brutality and overall absence of stability or safety. Thus, the political ideology of Hobbes posits that an authoritarian centralized sovereign is imperative to curb human nature's innate disorderliness (Hobbes, 2008).

Argument 2: The Social Contract

In order to avoid the roaring nature of society and establish a sense of political control, Hobbes asserts that people must form an agreement with those in power; referred to as a social contract (Hobbes, 2008). This concept deals with an agreement between citizens and their governing power whereby individuals agree to voluntarily relinquish their rights in that they may receive stability and protection from the state's rule (Hobbes, 2008). As per Hobbes, this agreement serves a vital role in creating political authority while simultaneously averting situations that would otherwise be characterized by lawlessness, and states (Hobbes, 2008):  "The only way to erect such a common power…  is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills…” (Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XVII, 2008). Therefore, livelihood becomes peaceful through a unified will of common safety for everyone, and the appointed man or assembly can be the declarer of good or ill judgment once appointed. To assert, “it is impossible that all the same things should always cause in him the same appetites, and aversions: much less can all men consent, in the desire of almost any one of the same objects” (Ch. VI). In essence, Hobbes' idea of the social covenant serves as a basis for his belief in absolute political power, clarifying how people give up their rights and liberties to gain security against chaos or competing desires (Hobbes, 2008). 

     Recall, the foundation of Hobbes' social contract lies in the notion that both individuals and states have mutually binding obligations (Hobbes, 2008). This agreement does not require one to surrender personal liberties unconditionally since it offers mutual rewards for both parties involved. The individual has some liberty because according to the right of nature, one has liberty to use whatever power to preserve his or her existence, and laws step in as considerate restraints using a mutual transferring of rights (Hobbes, Ch. XIV, 2008). When an individual surrenders his or her rights and freedoms to a state, it is with the expectation that said state will safeguard their welfare and stability within society (Hobbes, 2008). As a result, the state is responsible to maintain individual interests and provide protection and consistency for its citizens. This interdependence creates trust between citizens and governments; something essential for any functioning social order to exist in harmony. The only motive and end of transferring right, of entering this social contract, is “nothing else but the security of a man’s person, in his life, and in the means of so preserving life” (Hobbes, Ch. XIV, 2008). The citizens and state promise to deliver on the mutual agreement  through a document called a covenant. These are the terms of Hobbes’ social contract.

One must acknowledge that differing opinions will persist concerning the essence of political power and state function within society. To illustrate, certain scholars contend for a system of government where influence is distributed among multiple authorities or persons in lieu of centralized control. As an alternative stance, proponents maintain priority on civil liberties as opposed to prioritizing the interests held by governmental authority structures. Although there are those who might object to central authorities on account of this restrictive approach to personal autonomy, Hobbes' belief structure asserts that a descent into chaos and violence is inevitable without such a governing body in place (Hobbes, 2008). Those who oppose political absolutism believe that it places an excessive amount of control in the grasp of a singular authority figure (Hobbes, 2008). This opens up opportunities for misconduct and infringement on personal liberties. Instead, they advocate for alternative governing structures such as democracy or dispersed systems which would maintain order while promoting individual freedoms and safeguards against oppression.

          Other models of government such as democracy or decentralized systems rely on obtaining consent from their constituents in order to function properly. As well, Hobbes recognizes a typology of three regime types, which are monarchy, aristocracy, the rule of the nobility through an assembly, and democracy, the rule of the multitude through a popular assembly (Hobbes, Ch. XIX, 2008). Hobbes asserts that inherently these types are defective due to people always pursuing their own desires which can often be at odds with what is best for society overall. Because of this tendency towards self-interest, democratic and decentralized institutions can quickly absolve into turmoil and insatiable practices. 

          Hobbes asserts that, democracy cannot be maintained through the assembly of all people, “for the understanding, being by the passions, as it were, fettered to itself, and not left free to contemplate other things, is at the same time subjected to their assaults, insomuch as generally one passion, or several together, obstinately crossing the inclination which way soever it leadeth, distracted the mind…” (Hobbes, Ch. XVI, 2008). The people within constituents are conflated due to opposing sides of wise men who are the wealthiest, strongest or best spoken at one given time, but without recognition and flattery can envy and hate others out of egoistic tendencies. For instance, Hobbes states, “when they are obtained, are envied and hated, for being preferred before others, to whom in wit and merit they are inferior. Democracy hath therefore no other end than the greatest good of all…” (Hobbes, Ch. XVI, 2008). Therefore, democracy ends and becomes in need of order for state collective interests. 

          According to Hobbes, the majority has the potential to oppress and there may be no effective measures against it in a democratic system (Hobbes, 2008). In addition, decentralization can lead to chaos and instability without the presence of a  central authority to effectively manage social order. "In sum, whatever power existeth, either in monarchical or democratic states, it is derived from the people; but, as it is acquired by many in a democracy, it is acquired by the danger of the people's own tumultuousness…” (Hobbes, Ch. XVIII). Hobbes is fearful of the insatiable natures of man in society, from neglect to ambition to fraud, their nature are not always guaranteed or foreseeable. He thus criticizes that, “from the chance, or folly of those that may have the good fortune to obtain it: but in monarchies, by the neglect of the people, and the choice of one that is eminent in some virtue, or the power of one ambitious man, and the fraud of another'' (Hobbes, Ch. XVIII, 2008). Hobbes adds here that although man might acquire lawfulness in his or her actions, through means of valor, prudence, and justice, the individual may not truly exercise his power for the common good. In destroying that of another,” Hobbes reasons that humans are animated by passions, that's their commonality, yet all passions are different since the things one may fear does not necessarily apply to another (Hobbes, Ch. XVIII, 2008).

Those who disagree with political absolutism believe it grants excessive power to one entity, which can potentially result in the abuse of authority and restrict personal liberties. The rationale behind this assertion is that authoritarian governments arise from political absolutism; ones where individual interests take a backseat to those of the state. In critics’ views, allowing for an absolute ruler to assume authority permits them by their position to wield unbridled control over citizens in general. This in turn affects individuals by transferring fewer freedoms or no rights at all to them. 

          However, Hobbes' theory tackles the criticisms of those who argue that one entity has too much power by setting up a sturdy authority bound to protect personal interests, and ensuring stability through social contracts (Hobbes, 2008). Hobbes indicates that the conditions of the social contract actually serve to protect citizens from oppression and abuse: 

"The office of the sovereign, be it a monarch or an assembly, consisteth in the end for which he was trusted with the sovereign power, namely, the procuration of the safety of the people; to which he is obliged by the law of nature, and to render an account thereof to God, the author of that law, and to none but Him. But by safety here, is not meant a bare preservation, but also all other contentments of life, which every man by lawful industry, without danger, or hurt to the Commonwealth, shall acquire to himself” (Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XVIII, 2008). 

Henceforth, this dominant force will be responsible for crafting and implementing laws, ensuring that citizens' rights are protected while maintaining peace within society. Through these measures, it becomes apparent how such an absolutist system serves as a crucial instrument to ensure stability and guard from chaos. This type of government is crucial in preventing violence from occurring under state lawlessness while also maintaining individual liberties and entitlements.

The political absolutism theory built by Hobbes rests upon the prerequisite of a social contract to institute and forestall chaos from occurring in the state's natural environment (Hobbes, 2008). As soon as individuals enter into this agreement with an authoritative power, they can forfeit their rights and liberties for safety measures and constancy. Consequently, it enables a competent governance establishment that is centralized enough to ensure citizen interests are shielded appropriately.

     Throughout history, numerous instances of political absolutism have been demonstrated that offer proof for the potency of this type of government in preserving stability as well as safeguarding citizens’ benefits. An illustrative case involves European absolute monarchies during Early Modern times which were distinguished by a highly influential central control with nearly all-powerful authority over their subjects. Even though there was dissent from certain groups, these monarchies delivered effective results to sustain order and thwarted chaos prevalent in previous periods within Europe's annals.

In the present era, there are certain nations such as China and Russia whose leaders rule with complete control over political power. These types of governments can uphold civil order and promote economic advancement while simultaneously safeguarding their citizens' welfare. As an example, China has made tremendous progress in eradicating poverty among its populace on a massive scale thereby emerging as one of the world's most influential economies; at the same time, Russia has managed to maintain socioeconomic equilibrium despite facing immense difficulties both politically and economically. Though I do not argue that their methods of political usurpation are necessarily transparent, China and Russia have an endearing presence to keep citizens in line. 

The political philosophy of Hobbes which advocates absolute authority is essential for maintaining order and stability (Hobbes, 2008). Its capacity to establish a dominant and united government that can effectively govern society while ensuring the welfare of its people has been proven historically as well as contemporarily, justifying its strengths in this context. Despite criticisms against absolutism, it remains practical in sustaining an orderly life without chaos or instability within community living.

The argument presented by Hobbes in his theory of political absolutism is an intriguing one, positing that a powerful and centralized sovereign power is imperative to prevent societal upheaval and promote stability (Hobbes, 2008). Alternative forms of governance such as democracy or decentralized systems are subject to turmoil and disarray due to the inherent self-interest individuals possess which may contradict the greater good. In addition, Hobbes posits the need for a powerful governing body in order to avoid an innate state of disarray derived from human nature (Hobbes, 2008). In its absence, personal agendas will supersede communal well-being resulting in hostility and aggression. Political absolutism yields a social agreement that safeguards individual interests, by sacrificing independent desires for those aligned with the commonwealth's interest. Thus fostering equilibrium and securing citizen welfare.

Conclusion

Finally, after careful consideration of Hobbes' theory on political absolutism, it is concluded that this concept can greatly assist in the prevention of political turmoil while guaranteeing societal stability (Hobbes, 2008). The social contract lays down a framework where collective interests are emphasized over individual desires through mutual obligations between citizens and their government ensuring personal safety whilst prioritizing public well-being (Hobbes, 2008). By following such guidelines harmony can be achieved within society thus safeguarding every member's rights against upheaval.

In my essay, I have put forward the viewpoint that Hobbes' political absolutism is a convincing and indispensable answer to the challenge of governing disorder (Hobbes, 2008). Evidently, it can be observed that social contract theory plays an important role in this framework since it outlines how individuals trade their autonomy for security and regularity under state rule. I have also contended that this approach may be superior to democracy or decentralized systems at maintaining stability as it provides protection from chaos. Furthermore, I have taken into account the objections made against political absolutism, including apprehensions for possible exploitation of authority and encroachment upon individual liberties and entitlements. As illustrated by current examples, successfully executed political absolutism can ensure safeguarding of individual freedoms and rights whilst fostering social stability, as well as shielding citizens' interests.

References

Hobbes, T. (2008). Leviathan (J. C. A. Gaskin, Ed.). Oxford University Press.