The class discussion about Hobbes’ made me wonder what he
would think about today’s world and the international system, as we know it.
Hobbes is right insofar as that there needs to be a sovereign entity that should
have all the power and leads the people that submit to it. People submit to
their sovereign because they trust in their abilities to be great leaders and
take care of their people. However, what would he say about leaders like
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Assad, and Kim Jong-un?
In the cases of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, people wanted
change in their countries because their leaders were not able to take care of
its people, and as it was the case in Russia and China, their countries were
involved in bloody wars in which lots of people lost their lives while at the
same time the country’s economy was crippling and people were starving. So,
they trusted the leaders of the revolution to take over, become better leaders
and improve their situations. Unfortunately, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot turned out
to be even worse than their predecessors. Thousands of people were killed
during Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot’s purges. On top of thousands of people died of
starvation.
In the case of Assad and Kim Jong-un people had no choice
but accept them as their leaders and submit to them because they inherited the
leadership from their fathers. So, according to Hobbes, the people of Syria and
North Korea have the obligation to submit to their leaders because they
inherited the power from their fathers. But, as Hobbes, wrote, this obligation
to submit to their sovereigns, “is understood to last as long, and no longer,
than the power lasteth, by which he is able to protect them” (1651, p. 121).
These leaders do not protect their citizens as they are supposed to. In the
case of Kim Jong-un, he has people killed that he thinks turned against him
(just like Stalin and Mao did during their purges) and people are starving
while he seems to gain more and more weight. In the case of Assad, not only is he
not able to protect his citizens from the ISIS fighters, he actually (as I have
mentioned in my comment to Erica’s post) commits crimes against his own people
with chemical attacks.
During class we talked about International Relations today
and the solutions that Hobbes offers and we agreed that there needs to be a
leadership like the UN in today’s international system. But I am asking myself
if he would be alive today, would he agree that the UN should have the power to
intervene in cases where a leader does not take care of the people that are his
subjects?
References
Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Leviathan.
New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Christine, I disagree that Hobbs thinks that people submit to their sovereign because they trust in their abilities to be a great leader, which you mention in your first paragraph. Hobbes mentions, "For, whosoever hath a lawfull power over any Writing, to make it law, hath the power also to approve, or disapprove the interpretation of the same." (Chap. 33, Pg. 200)."
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I think he views the sovereign more as the most powerful person who can enforce the laws that he writes. If another leaders emerges and he embodies a more coercive power to enforce new and different laws, then that new leader will become the sovereign. You support this rational in your third paragraph with the quote you pulled from pg. 121.
I really like that you tied your thoughts back to the modern day in your last paragraph and your question is very intriguing. I would think that Hobbes would support the idea of a global governance mechanism such as the UN or NATO but he would insist on it having the power of enforcement. Currently, our global governance in more of a guidance system and contains few if not any mechanisms to enforce its conclusions.
Christine, I think we're thinking through similar thoughts in our blog posts. Where does sovereignty end and how do we deal with sovereigns that are not doing the duty of a sovereign? I share your question, would Hobbes allow for a mechanism like the UN to oversee a sovereign and intervene in cases where they do not act like a sovereign and protect their people? Or would Hobbes see this as a negation of sovereignty all together because the entities answer to something else on earth rather than having the ultimate corporeal power? I share your questions and enjoy the process of reconciling our readings to what's happening in the world today.
ReplyDelete