Hobbes, Locke, and the Social Contract Theory of Democracy

Introduction: From Divine Right to Social Contract

There once was a time when kings ruled and their subjects were bound by the absolute authority of the crown. The king was literally the law — whatever he decreed became law. All of his subjects had an obligation to remain loyal simply because God had appointed him king. Kings claimed their authority from God and therefore possessed ultimate power. However, beginning in the 1600s in England, people began to see the relationship between king and subject somewhat differently. A new ideal emerged: the idea that a king's authority came from the consent of the people, not from God.

It was Thomas Hobbes, in his book Leviathan, who first broached the idea that the relationship between king and people was a reciprocal one. The king and the people formed a "social contract," and each party had responsibilities to the other. Later, John Locke, in his Two Treatises of Government, further defined this social contract between ruler and subjects, limiting the power of the monarch and shifting the focus of the contract toward the benefit of the people. While Hobbes explicitly denounced democracy as an untrustworthy form of government and instead promoted a strong, centralized, benevolent ruler, Locke's ideas of limited government — while not specifically endorsing democracy — were far more democratic in nature and centered the role of government on the welfare of the people.

Hobbes and the Laws of Nature

Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan in the midst of the English Civil War, which raged between the forces of the king — who sought to impose his absolute authority — and the forces of Parliament, who sought to limit it. Hobbes wrote Leviathan as an attempt to explain the social contract between king and people: to define exactly what each party owed the other, how the contract came to be, and what each person was obligated to uphold.

Hobbes went on to define the "Laws of Nature," which described the three laws governing the natural state of things. His first law stated: "Every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of attaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war." (Hobbes, 87) (Part 1, Chapter 14). His second law stated that while each human being may be naturally free, people must give up some of that freedom — along with others — and be content to have only as much freedom to act toward others as they would allow others to act toward them. (Hobbes, 87–88) (Part 1, Chapter 14). In effect, people are born free but must surrender some of that freedom in order to live in a safe and secure society. This is often regarded as the beginning of what would become known as the "social contract."

Hobbes's third law of nature was rather direct: injustice is the failure to comply with the terms of the social contract. (Hobbes, 88) (Part 1, Chapter 14).

Hobbes on Sovereignty and the Rejection of Democracy

Hobbes's purpose was to define the rights and responsibilities between a king and his people, not to promote democracy. In fact, he believed that because people invariably place self-interest first, democracy could never truly function. Hobbes believed in a strong ruler capable of establishing law and order, but he also asserted that the ruler had responsibilities to the people and the country — responsibilities he described as the twelve principal rights of the sovereign. (Hobbes, 115–121) (Part 2, Chapter 18). While articulating what the king owed his people, Hobbes also argued that the origin of royal authority lay with the people themselves. Sovereign power, Hobbes wrote, "is when men agree amongst themselves, to submit to some man, or assembly of men, voluntarily, on confidence to be protected by him against all others." (Hobbes, 115) (Part 2, Chapter 18). According to Hobbes, the people willingly submit to the authority of the king in order to be protected by him.

While Hobbes did not specifically promote democracy, he did discuss it as one possible form of Commonwealth — a popular commonwealth governed by a group of representatives. (Hobbes, 123) (Part 2, Chapter 19). However, Hobbes rejected this form of government and preferred the sovereignty of a single monarch over that of a group of representatives, stating that the difference "consisteth not in the difference of power; but in the difference of convenience, or aptitude to produce the peace, and security of the people, for which end they were instituted." (Hobbes, 124) (Part 2, Chapter 19). In other words, a single monarch was far more convenient and could establish peace and security more effectively than a group of representatives. Hobbes felt that a group of representatives would be incapable of speaking with a single voice, and therefore risked creating different factions competing for the people's loyalty. (Hobbes, 124–126) (Part 2, Chapter 19).

It was a few decades later when another great thinker, John Locke, revisited the idea of the social contract. By this time, another despotic king had been overthrown and replaced by a new king brought in from overseas. The British, having decided to install a new monarch, were keenly interested in limiting his power. They needed to clarify the relationship between this new king and his people. Out of this context came Locke's Two Treatises of Government, which attempted to define the precise nature of the relationship between sovereign and subject.