Hobbes: A Not-So-Stable Social Contract

Hobbes: A Not-So-Stable Social Contract

In the United States of America, we are fortunate enough to live in a country with stable institutions, countless liberties, and freedom. Although some of us are disappointed in laws that are passed or politicians that are elected, we accept the rules of our democracy and have little to fear in terms of regime changes. The ongoing events in the middle east, Syria in particular, have made me think about social contracts. We have covered this topic in great depth throughout the course, but the more we consider different ways to organize government, the more I lean towards Locke's perspective on the state of nature and social contracts. No political theorist is right about everything, but hasn't the Arab Spring showed us how Hobbes' social contract leads to more unstable conditions than Locke's? In my opinion, his view that authoritarian regimes who constantly instill fear into their people will lead to stability and prosperity is proven false by the events that occurred last year, and events that are still occurring in certain areas.

Image found here

Before diving into this discussion, I'll review Hobbes' beliefs about the state of nature, and how men should emerge from that state. In his most famous writing, "Leviathan," Hobbes writes that life in the state of nature is solitary, nasty, brutish, and short. Humans are naturally selfish, equal in the powers of the body and mind, and we all fear an untimely death. According to Hobbes, we quarrel with each other because we can't know other people's intentions. This makes us fear for our lives and plunges us into a state of war. The only way to emerge from this terrible state is to make covenants with one another, eventually leading to a social contract and the creation of government. Hobbes advocates for an absolute monarchy, with the main purpose of government being the protection of a country's citizens. The people need to be willing to give up their rights for this type of protection, and the absolute monarch should be willing to enforce this covenant through whatever means are necessary. 

Image found here

Let's get back to the Arab Spring. December 17th, 2010 began like any regular day in the authoritarian country of Tunisia. The police confiscated Mohamed Bouazizi's fruit and vegetable stand because he didn't possess a permit, and little did they know that their actions would ignite a string of events that would literally change the world. Bouazizi responded to the confiscation by setting himself on fire in protest. The protests soon spread nationwide as thousands of Tunisian citizens called for the overthrow of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Dissent quickly spread into Egypt, as hordes of people began to protest in Tahrir Square. Yemen caught aflame next, followed by Bahrain, then Libya, and finally Syria. Every single one of these countries was ruled by an absolute monarch/dictator. Over the course of one year, five regimes were overthrown and replaced with democracies. Syria is the only one of these countries that has not yet been able to create a new government, and I'm sure that we are all hoping for the violence to end as quickly as possible. 

Libya's new President, Mohamed Megarief. Image found here

  What do these uprisings say about Hobbesian, dictatorial regimes in the 21st century? I want to make this point clear, I am not arguing that the Arab Spring was either good or bad. These countries face the uphill battle of trying to establish a democracy that is truly representative and fair, and many of them may fail in doing so. But in this age of globalization, people around the world see other countries and know about the democratic process. With the exceptions of China and North Korea (who either deny their citizens access to information or brainwash them), is anyone willing to have their rights taken away and to not have a say in their government? If the Arab Spring has taught us anything, it's that the world wants democracy. Regardless of race, region, gender, or religion, people are tired of being pushed around by absolute rulers. I believe that Hobbes' whole idea of humans coming together and giving up their rights to an absolute monarch in order for them to be protected is becoming less and less applicable as time passes. Certainly this view of the world was relevant when the "Leviathan" was written, but that was during a time when not everyone understood or could see the effects of democracy. As people become more informed about other forms of government, it certainly seems like they would prefer Locke's social contract. Hosni Mubarak was willing to use any means necessary in Egypt in order to keep his government in control, but not even violence or the threat of death could restore stability. As more people around the globe learn about democratic forms of government, the less stable Hobbesian dictatorships become! 

Here is a great video that describes the Arab Spring. Video can be found here

This situation leaves us with many questions that are nearly impossible to answer. Will these new "democratic" governments be any more stable than the dictatorships before them? What role should the United States play in the formation of these new governments? Will these countries become more prosperous after the removal of the dictators? Only hindsight will be able to answer these questions, but it important to observe the global push for freedom throughout the early 21st century. Populations that are forming governments today seem to be rejecting Hobbes and advocating for a society based upon freedom, and fair, democratic representation.