TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Politics > Unlimited Sovereignty
Remarkably, for Hobbes, sovereignty is not created on terms - it is absolute and undivided. The sovereign is not party to a social contract - he exists outside of a contract. There are no limits upon his power.
As such, there are only two possible forms in which society can exist - either a state of nature, or civil society, the latter in which the sovereign rules without limit.
Why did Hobbes come to this conclusion?
For Hobbes, it is simply impossible for the sovereign to make a contract with his subjects, because:
- If he had to make a contract, he would have to make it with each individual.' This is clearly impossible.
- Contracts made in the state of nature are not binding. There is no one to enforce them.
- A sovereign who would make a contract would be misunderstanding the nature of sovereignty. In Civil Society, the sovereign is placed in the condition that every rational egoist in the state of nature desired. The sovereign is the beneficiary of the contract, rather than a party to it. He would be foolish to bargain away some of his power.
- If the sovereign was to be judged to have violated the terms of a contract, then this would lead to civil war. If a people were ever in a position to judge whether the sovereign had broken the terms of a contract, they would have to find another sovereign to represent them. This would be the only way in which they could form a collective will with which to challenge the sovereign. This would lead to the creation of another sovereign, which, by definition, would mean civil war.
Comments
