Taking on The Leviathan: Why Democracy Trumps Monarchy, Essay Example

In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes makes a good argument for the superiority of monarchy over other forms of government, including democracy. Yet, even though many of Hobbes’s claims are true, the philosopher overlooks a number of good arguments for democratic governance. Monarchy does offer some benefits over democracy, but monarchy is only a better form of government if one ignores the value of human life and the importance of human rights. For Hobbes, success is everything. For the democrat, however, safety and success are not enough.

Before one can argue with Hobbes, one has to understand his arguments.  Hobbes believes that, in the state of nature, man is brutish and that life for the natural man is chaotic and short. Hobbes does not believe that men can live in harmony and repress their desires on their own. Instead, he says the following:

For the laws of nature, as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to, of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like.

Therefore, says Hobbes people need governments. Without a power that can force men to behave, societies cannot, says Hobbes be safe. The purpose of establishing a government, then, in the eyes of Thomas Hobbes, is to create a safe and organized society (Hobbes, 2003).  A monarchy, says Hobbes, is therefore the best form of government, because the monarchy is the form of government most able to create a stable and secure society. Hobbes gives three major reasons for this belief.

First, he argues that monarchs are able to seek advice from anyone they choose in any place they see fit. Assemblies, he says, are often not allowed to meet private advisers and are more restricted in their choices (Hobbes, 2003).  Hobbes is probably right. In modern American politics, President Obama came under much scrutiny after critics claimed that he had met with Weather Underground activist Bill Ayers (Dobbs, 2008).  The story may have hurt Obama politically, and because the President is not a monarch, he could not silence the rumors quickly on his own. Were Obama a monarch, he could have easily done away with his critics. This would mean a more stable rule for President Obama, but it would be bad news for dissenters.

President Obama has also received criticism for receiving advice on healthcare issues from men like Cass Sunstein, who seem to advocate health-care rationing which favors the young (Sunstein, 2003). Public sentiment is largely against the healthcare bill and this may be one of the reasons. Were Obama the lone monarch, public sentiment would not matter, nor would worries about Sunstein. Obama would not have to worry about re-election, he could simply make whatever decision he felt was best for the country. Perhaps this would mean that Americans would have a better healthcare system, regardless of whether or not they favored it.

On the other hand, the elderly would be put in a bad place and they would have no recourse. Seniors who dislike the ideas of one legislator can appeal to another in a democracy. They can also vote those who harm them out of office. This is not the case in a monarchy. In a monarchy, they would simply have to grin and bear it, or else risk being destroyed. Hobbes sees this sort of destruction as just. Human rights advocates would likely find it abhorrent.

Hobbes also praises monarchy because the decisions of a monarch are more consistent than those of an assembly and the chance of civil war is less. Again, Hobbes’s argument makes sense. A monarch is certainly likely to be more consistent than a group of diverse representatives (Hobbes, 2003). Yet one has only to look at the bloody history of the European monarchies to understand how easy it is for a land ruled by a monarch to fall into civil war.  Consider, for instance, the war over succession after Henry VIII’s death and the bloody wars between the Catholics and Protestants that followed.

Furthermore, it is not hard to think of a case in which a civil war is the lesser of two evils. The American Civil war is one of these cases. Before the civil war millions of Americans had to live under the cloud of slavery. They could not own property, could not marry freely and were often badly mistreated. Had the civil war not been waged, many minorities might still be living in such a state. One could argue, then, that civil wars can bring about desirable results (WBGH Educational Foundation, 1999).

Finally, Hobbes argues that a monarchy is the best form of government because succession is more organized and stable. But, here, Hobbes could not be more wrong. Problems with succession in monarchies have lead to some of the most destabilizing events in human history.  Monarchs have often had trouble producing male heirs. It was largely for this reason that Henry VIII put away his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. In order to divorce his wife, Henry VIII created a whole new church, because he could not obtain the approval of the Vatican.  This has lead to violence that has spanned hundreds of centuries (Weir, 1991).

Had Henry VIII not had to worry about producing an heir, he would not have divorced his wife and not have created a new church. His daughter Mary I would probably not be known as Bloody Mary for her role in burning Protestants, and the back and forth killings between Christian and Protestants would not have destabilized England. Furthermore, Ireland would probably be in a much better state and the constant squabbling between Catholics and Protestants might not exist. Perhaps the IRA would never have been founded. England was not the only country to have had problems with succession. Consider, for instance, the case of the Romans Empire. After the death of the emperor Nero, Rome went through a civil war that put Rome through the reign of four emperors in one year (Wellesley, 2003).

The democratic process is usually a lot more stable. Although representatives are voted out often, the system tends to remain the same and the methods by which leaders are replaced are less bloody and nowhere near as troubling. New representatives generally still have older representatives to look to for advice, while the Roman  emperors lacked this ability, as replacing monarchs generally meant killing them off. This meant that Rome lost valuable political resources and became tremendously unstable.

One can understand Hobbes’s arguments. Legislation would pass more quickly and easily if a monarch was put in charge of the government. Much of the confusion that exists in today’s politics could be avoided. Yet the country would be more brutal and far less stable than it is under its current democratic form of government. Furthermore, a monarchy would restrict human and civil rights and leave individuals without much recourse when they were wronged. Therefore, a democratic system of government seems superior to monarchial governance.

Works Cited

Dobbs, M. (2008, February 19). The Fact Checker: Obama’s Weatherman Connection. Retrieved November 3, 2010, from The Washington Post : http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html

Hobbes, T. (2003, September). The Leviathan. Retrieved November 3, 2010, from Great Voyages: The History of Western Philosophy from1492 to 1776: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html#Chapterxvii

Sunstein, C. (2003, June). Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay. Retrieved November 4, 2010, from Social Science Research Network: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=421341

WBGH Educational Foundation. (1999). The African Slave Trade and the Middle Passage. Retrieved November 3, 2010, from PBS Online: http://books.google.com/books?id=KP3Py9KaMUoC&dq=year+of+the+four+emperors&source=bl&ots=nb4JlmLeTX&sig=ckV4cK1mIRKCqBA1fymzRfcf8xY&hl=en&ei=G1hstnbvd8tinAenzJUp&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw

Weir, A. (1991). The Six Wives of Henry VIII. The Bodley Head: London.

Wellesley, K. (2003). Year of the Four Emperors. London: Routledge.