If nothing else, the pages of history can be accurately summed up as a collection of tales of power, or more precisely, the quest to obtain and retain power. In this, history intersects with political theory when considering the nature of power, who is entitled to hold power and rule over others, and a myriad of other elements which form the foundation of political power itself. Throughout history, political philosophers-among them Machiavelli and Hobbes- have commented and written extensively on the dynamics of power as well as its transitory, fleeting nature. This paper will analyze and discuss the theories of both Machiavelli and Hobbes in an effort to better understand political theory itself; where appropriate, direct quotes will be utilized and explained.
Machiavelli’s and Hobbes’ Perceptions of the Ruler
At the very root of power itself are some fundamental questions that warrant examination within the context of Machiavelli and Hobbes; first, the issue of who should rule the state, as well as how they should rule it. When studying the ideas of these two political philosophers, it becomes apparent that no two individuals could be more different in their thoughts on the same topic.
Machiavelli, to begin, takes a somewhat cynical view of who should rule the state, especially when considering this direct quote from him on the subject: “Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it (Viroli, 1998, p.134). This one quotation speaks volumes in terms of Machiavelli’s point of view on the nature of rulers- when looking at this as well as other sources of information about the Machiavellian viewpoint, several key assertions become clear. The ideal ruler in the eyes of Machiavelli would be either an individual or individuals who derive legitimacy from sheer force and the submission of their subjects; within this dynamic, the Machiavellian leader(s) would relate to citizens not in a collaborative manner, but in a dictatorial way. This being understood, citizens would not have much, if any voice in the political process, nor would they have the freedom to speak out against political issues to which they were opposed (Viroli, 1998). The rights of the ruler would be limitless, and his power absolute. This assertion is confirmed by yet another quote directly from Machiavelli himself: “A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise.” (Viroli, 1998, p. 216).
Hobbes stands in contrast to Machiavelli, at least on the surface, in terms of his theories on who should rule the state. Whereas Machiavelli advocates the ideas of absolute power, submission among subjects, and the gaining of authority through a display of force, Hobbes seems to be more attuned to the ideas of the nature of man to be essentially free, and the ruling of the state by a democratic type of a body, rather than a solitary dictator or despot. For example, one can consider the following quote from Hobbes: “The right of nature… is the liberty each man hath to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life.” (Harrison, 2003, p. 67). In other words, Hobbes is saying that every person has within them certain rights, yearnings and liberties; as such, the individual is entitled, and indeed should, pursue their own interests and not be oppressed by rulers. Likewise, rulers should not attempt to force subjects into submission or to rule by intimidation or fear- for Hobbes, power must be earned and maintained through a level of fairness (Rogers, et al, 2000). Within this scope, the ruler should be motivated, in Hobbes’ opinion, by serving the interests of the people over whom they govern. Likewise, the citizens would be involved in the political process, and the ruler, having earned the right to rule, would have the duty to effectively lead with conscience rather than sheer force.
Having taken a close look at the theories of Machiavelli and Hobbes respectively, it is possible to draw on the similarities and differences between the two in regard to their political philosophies. While it would be tempting to simply conclude that both men were totally dissimilar in their philosophies, this is not so; rather, there are some basic tenets upon which it can be said they agree. Admittedly to varying degrees, both Machiavelli and Hobbes believe in the use of force to maintain power- this is seen in the writings of Machiavelli and Hobbes respectively, based upon these direct quotes: “It is not wisdom but Authority that makes a law” (Viroli, 1998, p. 144); “Not believing in force is the same as not believing in gravitation.” (Rogers, et al, 2000, p. 99). An essential difference between these philosophers in reference to force is how it is used; while Machiavelli advocates the use of force to gain and maintain power, Hobbes believes that force should only be used to maintain power which was gained through legitimate channels, the will of the people, and the cornerstone of freedom and liberty (Harrison, 2003).
Conclusion
Political philosophy, as well as the legitimacy of power, are pivotal issues that will likely continue to be debated as long as thinking individuals exist in the world. This being said, this research has shown that the ideas of two men from two different generations, holding different views in many areas, also seem to agree on others. In closing, perhaps this speaks the loudest regarding the nature of power and the state- authority, however gained, must be wielded with great care, for without that caution, chaos is likely to ensue.
Harrison, R. (2003). Hobbes, Locke, and Confusion’s Masterpiece: An Examination of Seventeenth-Century Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, G. A. & Sorell, T. (Eds.). (2000). Hobbes and History. London: Routledge.
Viroli, M. (1998). Machiavelli. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
