Human Nature And Its Impact On Sovereigns

Forming a sovereignty has always been a crucial part of the human societies. Without a doubt many people are agree with the idea of the importance of it. However, just because there is a common agreement, there are still different opinions about the which sovereignty type is the best. In the Chapter XIX of Leviathan, Hobbes studies the concept of sovereignty and the institutions of the commonwealth. While doing so, he compares sovereignty of one (Monarchy) against the sovereignty of many (Democracy and Aristocracy). According to Hobbes, Monarchy has more advantage for a state because of the flaws that comes from human nature. In this paper following question will be answered on two different angles. How in any way could the flaws weakness of human nature make a commonwealth ruled by an assembly, less reliable than a commonwealth ruled by a “one”?

In order to answer the question above, one must know the Hobbes’ definition for human nature According to Hobbes, hunger for the power is what drives and motives humans to act. Hobbes describe it as; “I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of Power after power, that ceases only in Death' (Hobbes, Leviathan, p.75). Beside from humanity’s hunger for power, Hobbes also mention what Human Nature cause. He acknowledges that all mankind created equality in terms of mind and body, naturally there are minor differences. Due to this equality people want more power because they know, they have a chance to gain power over their fellow citizens. When equality of rights, mind and body of humans merged with human nature, it creates competition and from competition, wars and conflicts rises. According to Hobbes, only way to avoid conflicts and war, humans must follow state of nature, which is the creating a commonwealth (Hobbes, p. 97).

As it is seen in the paragraph above, due to humanity’s nature and the state of nature that comes from it, conflicts between different equal human beings are not avoidable. This equality can be at any part or rank in the society. While comparing sovereignty of sole individual and sovereignty of many, Hobbes’ reasonings are mostly depend on human nature. According to him, first difference (to favor of Monarchy) is, basically, what rulers aim while ruling their state. There are different ways for one to show hisher power, just as there are different ways of power. Having, properties, objects, items is one way to show power. More, valuable, possessions mean more power one has. With this logic, question of, “What is the most valuable property a monarch has?”, can be answered. Naturally, monarch’s subjects, land and the nation, is the most important property. For Monarchs, these properties are a way to gain power over other nations and those nations’ Monarchs. That is why monarch aims, usually, parallel to aims of the nation (Hobbes, p.144).. On the other hand, in a situation that nation lead by Aristocratic system, those who rule the nation cannot, always, seek the goodness of their nation. Of course, being a ruler and a citizen makes them feel obligated for the nation well-being but since there are multiple ruler who are equal creates competition among rulers. A competition that emerged for the hunger of power over one’s fellow equals. When this happens, well-being of the nation becomes second priority for those who enter the power race (Hobbes, p.144).

Another difference that occurs because of the human nature is the, problems in the resolution process. Ruler’s job is to decide and regulate law for the citizens and nations future. Naturally, rulers or a ruler must decide on the best laws and regulation possible and also regulate them in the best way possible. This situation works perfectly in a single ruler system because there are no conflicts in the resolution process. Monarch always has the last say. However, that does not mean, in the resolution process there is only one idea about a concept and Monarch decides solely. Because there are many advisers and government officials that help Monarch to decide and show himher different angles of the decision. Resolution process works differently in the Aristocracy. Because, just like in the first paragraph Aristocrats are the higher-ranking officers of the nation and they see each other as equals as much as they see each other as threats. Basically, when an Aristocrat loses hisher credibility and the respect in the eyes of public, other Aristocrats gain from it. It is no surprise that, their personal ambition to gain power, affects a nation’s resolution process. In order to, eliminate the effectiveness of another Aristocrat, or simply in order to block another Aristocrat to gain more effectiveness, others can take an opposite stand. Hobbes explain this situation as follows; “That a Monarch cannot disagree with himselfe, out of envy, or interest; but an Assembly may; and that to such a height, as may produce a Civill Warre”. (Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 145). Of course, Monarch’s advisers can race over power just like Aristocrats, but in this scenario, there is filter that decision must go through, Monarch. No matter how advisers race due to their ambition, Monarch has the final say. While this kind off “filter” is not in an Aristocracy.

To conclude, as long as humanity and their societies ruled by a human, there always be a power-seeking purpose among humans, especially among equal ones. Whether it is Monarchy, Democracy or Aristocracy, humans will always seek their own interest first. However, Monarchy is better for the well-being of the nation than Aristocracy. Because in Aristocracy, rulers fight with each other (their equals in terms of rank) in order to get power. Monarchs has the same kind of power fight but not with their own citizens, their fight is with other Monarchs. In order to win this fight Monarchs must have the best property possible.

REFERENCES

1. Hobbes, T. (1985). Leviathan (First ed.). London: Penguin Classics.