Shmitt Vs Hobbes Political Analysis

1628 Words 7 Pages
Carl Schmitt glorified Thomas Hobbes within his work The Concept of the Political, calling him “truly a systematic and powerful political thinker”. It should then come as no surprise that their theories of sovereignty bear some similarities. How a sovereign comes into power depends largely on the circumstances. Both Schmitt and Hobbes find that conflict is what will bring people to commit to a sovereign. Once a sovereign takes power the he must maintain the promises he told the people that sacrificed their freedom for him to rule. Though Schmitt and Hobbes have their fair deal of similarities when it comes to sovereignty, ultimately Schmitt has a more aggressive view of how a sovereign should assert his power. In order to compare and contrast …show more content…
The reason it must have this power is that it must be the unquestioned judge of disputes involving the violation of the contract between individuals, and that it must be neutral, not involving itself in the "special interests" of its subjects. To this end, Hobbes does make clear that once the contract is made, it cannot be changed. The sovereign cannot forfeit his power, he can never be accused of injustice, and that the sovereign has all power to make laws and administer the government. The purpose of this totalitarism-esque stipulations is not to take away the liberty of the subjects but to give the sovereign the authority and power to do the job that he or she is supposed to do. “Besides, if any one, or more of them, pretend a breach of the Covenant made by the Soveraigne at his Institution; and others, or one other of his subjects, or himself alone, pretend there was no such breach, there is this case, no Judge to decide the controversie: it returns therefore to the sword again;” (Leviathan 230) Hobbes explains that without the absolute power needed to resolve all conflicts, the Institution will fall apart and return to a state of

Related Documents