Part 1 of this essay can be found here.
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)
Niccolo Machiavelli arguably needs no introduction. There was a time not too many years ago in Lagos that it was almost impossible to come across a street book vendor that did not have a copy of The Prince (Machiavelli’s signature work) or some derivative targeted at corporate life.
It came popular with the publication of The Prince to believe that Machiavelli was inspired by the devil when he wrote it. This is perhaps understandable, given the shockingly brutal frankness, with which he described despicable acts that statesmen ought to carry out in a bid to hold onto power. But a deeper reading of The Prince suggests that perhaps that this judgement has been applied too hastily.
To see why this judgement might have been hasty, one has to realize that Machiavelli dealt in only the harsh truth, and the harsh truth was that in the brutal world of politics, particularly the politics of his time, rulers are often forced to choose between two evils, rather than between two goods or between a good and an evil. In such tragic circumstances, choosing the lesser evil over the greater evil, however cruel, is the ethically right thing to do. That is why he is most associated with the phrased he supposedly coined, “the ends justify the means.”
Concerning the criticism that his views lacked Christian virtue, Machiavelli believed that the ethical outlook of Christianity was unrealistic. Machiavelli was one of the first writers in the West to state openly that ‘dirty hands’ are an unavoidable part of everyday politics and to accept the troubling ethical implications of this hard truth without flinching. He held that politicians who deny this are not only unrealistic but are likely to lead citizens down a path to greater evil and misery than is really necessary.
Whatever one might feel of The Prince, what is not in dispute is that even after 500 years, it is still considered the ultimate reference on power politics.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
Thomas Hobbes is the first of the three most influential social contract theorist, the other two being John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau.
Social contract theory states that societies and governments are formed through an agreement, or contract, between individuals who relinquish some freedoms in exchange for protection and order, establishing the rights and duties of both the governed and the rulers. It is worth noting that these agreements need not be explicit (they usually aren’t). Their presence is usually inferred from the fact that a particular society has consented to be ruled by its leaders.
Hobbes social contract theory is laid out in his signature work, Leviathan published in 1651. The defining points of his theory are that the natural rights to life are highly vulnerable without a government because disagreements about where one man’s rights end and another one’s own begins could very easily end in violent dispute and ultimately creating a general condition of violence that keeps everyone in fear.
This situation arises, he further points out because human beings are naturally unfit for living in society because we have a natural desire to dominate each other. Only an overpowering government he would argue, could impose order and keep the peace.
However, he pointed out that this overpowering government needed to have the consent of the governed, so it wasn’t an outright dictatorship. But once it had secured that consent, it was to be given absolute power. That government he called the Leviathan, which was a strange mix of liberalism and authoritarianism.
It is important to understand the backdrop against which Hobbes wrote the Leviathan. His home country of England had been experiencing a raging civil war since 1642 and the country was still feeling the effects by the time he published in 1651. The civil war must have impressed on him a strong need to go back to political basics and make the case for an almost all-powerful sovereign whose one, overriding purpose is to maintain peace and protect the lives of his subjects.
With the outbreaks of terrorism in Nigeria, which seems to have become something of a staple in recent times, many Nigerian citizens would no doubt agree.
John Locke (1632-1704)
John Locke was by far the most successful of the three giants of social contract theory in terms of actual implementation of their ideas. America’s Founding fathers were in particular, profoundly affected by Locke’s ideas. The political system they devised in the late 18th century was to a considerable extent, inspired by Locke’s ideas.
Therefore, to the degree any nation’s political system is inspired by the American political system (that would include Nigeria), it is inspired by Locke’s ideas. America’s first Secretary of State and third president Thomas Jefferson who drafted America’s Declaration of Independence, would take Locke’s Second Treatise of Government as his model.
At the heart of Locke’s political philosophy are the concepts of limited government, natural rights, freedom and private property. Unlike Hobbes, Locke did not believe that government needed to be granted absolute power. He instead, favoured limited constitutional government.
Like Hobbes, he believed that without government, conflicts inevitably arise when selfish humans interact, so we need a system of state-enforced laws to protect our natural rights, but unlike Hobbes, he didn’t believe that life would descend into the chaos that Hobbes did without such a system. He thought that life would be merely bearably unpleasant, which is why he saw no reason to grant government absolute power, and again unlike Hobbes, he was concerned with the abuse of that power, hence hi emphasis on limited constitutional government.
Locke’s most influential idea is that the primary reason individuals create governments is to ensure the preservation of their property, in which he included life itself. Locke argued that our property, lives and freedom are very vulnerable, when it is up to each of us to protect our goods from those who don’t respect them. He thought that we would do well to surrender our rights to punish those who trespass against us to the state, who can act more effectively and impartially on our behalf, in return for our obedience to its laws.
It is hard to overestimate Locke’s impact on the modern world. Our everyday language of rights, trade and religious tolerance can be found in his 17th century writings. While the scope of the state has expanded massively since then, the liberal core that he championed remains in the form of human rights, religious freedom and constitutional government.
David Hume (1711-1776)
David Hume was at the centre of a set of influential Scottish philosophers who championed religious tolerance, science and trade. This circle included his good friend the great economist, Adam Smith.
Hume’s best known work, A Treatise on Human Nature, was not political per se, but it profoundly affected his outlook on politics. He believed that our natural benevolence only extended to a close group of family and friends, and that our capacity for self-above was potentially without bounds and often at odds with the rest of society. Therefore, impartial rules of justice are needed to restrain our partiality. He considered government to be one of the finest inventions of the human mind.
Hume had a realistic appreciation of the imperfection of societies and the limitations of human reason, which inclined him towards moderate, pragmatic reforms and gradual piecemeal change, over political idealism and violent revolution. He felt that as long as institutions and rulers keep the peace, and do not unduly oppress or exploit their subjects, they should be obeyed.
Hume had a profoundly skeptical outlook, which made him politically cautious. It also made him intellectually humble. We would all do well to imbibe his humility.
Jean-Jacque Rousseau (1712-1778)
Jean-Jacque Rousseau’s life is a remarkable Cinderella story. His mother died while giving birth to him. His father abandoned him at the age of 10. A citizen of Geneva (Geneva was then an independent city-state and not a part of Switzerland as it is today), he arrived in Paris at the age of 30 in 1742, penniless, unknown and unpublished.
By the time of his death 36 years later, he was a best-selling novelist, a highly successful opera composer, author of many well received books and essays on subjects ranging from education, to ethics, music, religion, language, politics, economics and even botany. He was buried in the Pantheon, a cemetery in Paris for France’s greatest heroes (not bad for a foreigner).
Rousseau’s influence and impact extends much further than his writings. If you have ever been told or have told someone to “be yourself”, you have Rousseau mostly to thank for this. The idea of “being yourself”, did not drop into the general human consciousness from heaven, even though surely, there must have been people throughout history who had the courage to be themselves (and must have been labelled crazy for it). It was largely Rousseau who turned “being yourself” into a societal ideal. Because of him, we have come by and large, to value sincerity and authenticity more than any other human traits.
Rousseau’s most widely read and enduring book is The Social Contract. It has been in continuous print for over 250 years. It was however, not popular during his own life time. Rousseau’s key argument in The Social Contract is that sovereignty should reside with the people. He used the expression “general will” to describe this people-led sovereignty.
It should be noted that this” general will” of the people isn’t merely the collection of each person’s selfish desires. It was the result of the genuine search for the common good or public interest. Rousseau’s believed such public-spiritedness didn’t come naturally to people, therefore he believed it was necessary for institutions to instill it in people.
Rousseau’s doctrine of popular sovereignty resonated deeply with ordinary people disillusioned with corrupt and self-serving elites across Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. That disillusion seems to be something 21st century citizens the world over are increasingly feeling, as they grow increasingly angry with a system that favors the rich and powerful at the expense of the majority. That, might just make Rousseau the man for the times again.
Author: Abdul Mohammed
