Compare the notion of sovereignty in Hobbes and Rousseau

Résumé du document

As the study revolves around the notion of sovereignty, it is important to know what sovereignty is. Presenting the definition given by a dictionary might be of no use, but it could partially enlighten us of what we are discussing. Various dictionaries offer alternative definitions for sovereignty such as "a supreme and independent political power or authority", "a power detained by a political collectivity that is governing itself", etc.

Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher of the 17th century. He is essentially known for his political and philosophical thinking. His major contributions are seen in the fields like science, geometry, ethics, history, and so on. His famous work "Leviathan" was published in 1651 and this book dealt with the theory of "Social Contract", which will be analyzed later in this study. The extract we have to analyze in this essay is the, 19th chapter (Of the several kinds of common-wealth by institution, and of succession of the sovereign power) picked from this book. In this chapter, Thomas Hobbes is explaining why a monarchy is preferable than any other form of government and he highlights the disadvantages of democracy and oligarchy. According to him, only a monarchy can pull a nation out from war which is something inherent in a "natural state".

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Swiss philosopher of the 18th century, whose thought greatly influenced the French Revolution. His famous works include Confessions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Les Confessions) and Julie, and the New Heloise (Julie, ou la nouvelle Heloise). The extracts we are going to analyze are from his flagship book, "The Social Contract" that was published in 1762. Even today, this book remains one of the most important works in political philosophy. The extracts we are going to study are from Book I, Chapters VI (The Social Compact) and VII (The Sovereign) and Book III, Chapters, I (Government in General) and XV (Deputies or representatives). In these chapters, Rousseau explains the notion of sovereignty and also expresses his point of view of how the best form of democratic government should be.

Extraits

[...] The Monarch must have all the Sovereignty, the Power, because division is a source of conflict. Rousseau promotes power's division but the Sovereignty remains one as it is planed in his social compact. Indeed, he distinguishes the Legislative (the general will) and the Executive. As a explained before, Rousseau sees the Executive only as the general will's tool and thus it must obey to the general will that is to say to the Legislative. From this last point begins to emerge the resemblance between Rousseau's and Hobbes' theories which reside in the indivisibility of the Sovereignty and the critic of Representatives Indeed, even if Rousseau and Hobbes are opposed about powers division, they agree on the fact that Sovereignty is indivisible. [...]

[...] “Thus those who hold that the act, by which a people put it under a prince, is not a contract are certainly right. It is simply and solely a commission, an employment, in which the rulers, mere officials of the Sovereign, exercise in their own name the power of which it makes them depositaries”. In Rousseau, contrary at in Hobbes, the Government is submitted to the people. Thus the Sovereign has the right to rebel against the Government. The last point of opposition between the two philosophers is in the power's separation. [...]

[...] Compare the notion of sovereignty in Hobbes and Rousseau Introducing the subject, I should give a definition of what sovereignty is. Nonetheless, the subject questions directly this definition. Thus, giving a dictionary's definition is something we could think useless. But, I think it could approximatively enlighten what we are discussing with. The Combined dictionary thesaurus define sovereignty as a “supreme and independent political power or authority” while the dictionary TLFI define it as a power detained by a political collectivity which is governing itself. [...]

[...] In Hobbes, a Government is the condition of peace. Peace is the supreme goal of a Commonwealth to which freedom is inferior. Peace can only be preserved if the people consent to submissiveness to the One representative who has only one will thing that avoid disagreements and so civil war) and who, thereby, detains all their rights. By contrast, in Rousseau's theory the government is aimed to preserve freedom. “Where right and liberty are everything, disadvantages count for nothing”. Rousseau summarize his thought about a government's aim in this sentence: problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before”. [...]

[...] The whole sovereignty resides in the people who are united in a sovereign Assembly. Each person has a part of the sovereignty but must submit to the General Will and thus isn't sovereign by himself but is sovereign in the association of all the people. At last, the problem of Representatives is a key thing in Rousseau's and Hobbes' conception of sovereignty. Indeed, they both think there must not be any Representatives if the sovereignty is one. The sovereignty resides or in the people for Rousseau or in the Monarch for Hobbes but never in the Representatives as the both authors agree to say. [...]