Hobbesian war of conflciting government bodies

Vishagan

Hobbes argument is that a division of power will reduce to civil war, because all the bodies will engage in a conflict due to their disagreement.

"Only a government that possesses all of what Hobbes terms the “essential rights of sovereignty” can be reliably effective, since where partial sets of these rights are held by different bodies that disagree in their judgments as to what is to be done, paralysis of effective government, or degeneration into a civil war to settle their dispute, may occur."

If we however question what the conclusion of such a war looks like, we can aquire an interesting perpective.

There are two possibilities: First a body of government believes it should do its own job otherwise than prescribed by the other conflicting body of governments. Second, It believes that other bodies of government should do things according to its own prescription. If a war is fought for the first reason and won for that reason then I think efficiency is increased. For example the executive had different ideas in about its own task than other bodies of government. Now war is waged and the result is a win for the executive branch. The Executive now conducts its job according to its wants and its wants are justified by the virtue of expertise, but it doesnt affect other branches of government. If however war is waged for the second reason, if you assume that the executive branch is for example not a specialist in legislative affairs nor judicative affairs and still wins the conflict, then the inefficient ideas of the executive about other branches of government will apply to other branches of government.

Tobias

Well, to complicate the picture even further, the branches of governemnt are themselves not untitary. For instance the executove branch is usually comprised of different departments and these departments might start ars of all against all as well. So even if the executive 'wins' the war you describe, the question is which department has won control of the executive branch. You might be thinking of the president, but no president rules alone. So the queestion is still one of influence.

To curb this from happening, a number of institutional checks and balances are normally built in, like negotiations, often behind closed doors. Still, it is not an uncommon sight. In the European Union for instance, there is frequent infighting among the different departments headed by the various commissioners. In the legislative branch similar tugs of war are imaaginable, especially in multi party systems. In the EU further complicated by national allegiances.

So yes, Hobbesian wars of all against all are imaginable and these squabbles generally do not result in more efficiency unless a power grab takes place perhaps. If you are more intereste in this topic I suggest taking a look at the literaure on governance, there is a wealth of information out there.

baker

If we however question what the conclusion of such a war looks like, we can aquire an interesting perpective. — Vishagan

The outcome of a war is not necessarily predictable. If the prospective parties to go to war are unequally powerful, then going to war to settle a dispute can only work in favor of one party and the result is clear in advance. Such a war is a meaningless waste of resources.

Also, the actual act of fighting a war can change the perspectives of the parties involved.

Relying on a war to determine who is right is a form of judicium Dei, an ancient judicial practice; it's going to war based on the premise that those who win are right or innocent. It's an attempt to absolve oneself from the responsibility of deciding in ethical matters, and instead relying on the principle might makes right.

Paine

↪Vishagan

In the Leviathan, Hobbes argues for monarchy being the best system because it forces the different agencies of government to be answerable to a single source of power. The primary differences between the agencies relate to the work that they do. The alternative to their existence would be the absence of institutions dedicated to the benefit of the public good. Such an absence is described by Hobbes as the natural condition where man is at war with all other men.

This scenario does not provide much of a context for the struggle between 'bodies of government' you describe. Hobbes recognizes that such institutions are liable to corruption in both aristocratic and democratic regimes. But that is quite different from suggesting that the work of government is itself conditioned by the war its acceptance by a society is supposed to avert.

Hobbesian war of conflciting government bodies

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions