Hobbesian notion of Political Obligation (UPSC CSE Mains 2017 - Political Science and International Relations, Paper 1)
Political obligation is a frame through which people accept the commands of the “men in authority”. It has certain distinct characteristics. They are:
-
- Management of public affairs
- Political Legitimacy
- Resistance to authority
- Social contract theory propounds that persons’ political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society and polity in which they live. Unlike ancient theorists like Plato and Aristotle who viewed State as a natural institution necessary for the moral development of people, the contractualist tradition led by modern thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau attempted to justify and delimit State as an artificial political authority on the grounds of individual self-interest and rational consent.
- The Hobbesian Sovereign enjoys unlimited powers and privileges. All his subjects owe him unquestioning loyalty and obedience under the threat of punishment. This political obligation cannot be legitimately removed from them and any one transgressing the same will be doing something morally unjust. On the other hand, the sovereign owes nothing to the subjects and cannot be unjust in any of his ways. He cannot be punished or removed. The sovereign is the supreme law maker and has the sole authority to interpret natural law. Hence, the civil law declared by the sovereign cannot be questioned on the basis of any claim to natural law or justice. The sovereign himself is not subject to any law because he is the author of laws. The sovereign is also the ultimate judicial authority in the commonwealth and has ultimate authority to adjudicate any kind of conflict in the commonwealth. Hobbes does not want any check on the powers of the sovereign.
- Hobbes gives unlimited powers to the sovereign and does not grant a right to dissent or rebel to citizens. However, he is mindful of the fact that people agree to institute a sovereign, either explicitly or implicitly, only to preserve their life. As noted earlier, the one right which is not surrendered to the sovereign is the right to self-preservation. Hence, a person is not under any obligation to obey a sovereign if the latter asks him to kill or injure himself. So, even if a sovereign deems an individual as a threat to the peace of the commonwealth and wants him or her to be killed, that person has the right to defend himself or herself. He or she is under no obligation to obey the sovereign against his or her right to self-preservation. The sovereign thus, has, to use force to get it done for the benefit of the commonwealth. Similarly, if a sovereign is not adequately competent to protect the right to life of his subjects, then also they are under no obligation to him. For example, if the sovereign is unable to put down a violent rebellion which endangers the lives of citizens, then he is no longer the sovereign or supreme power within the commonwealth, which is indicative of the collapse of the commonwealth. The situation then is akin to the state of nature and each person is at liberty to protect themselves through whatever means necessary.
Next
previous
Latest News
EDITORIALS & ARTICLES
General Studies