Hobbes and the Sovereign

Why should so much power lie with the sovereign? Hobbes seems to assert that we would all be better off in an autocratic society where all the power lies somewhat singularly at the top, but is this really better? The practical results of such a theory have shown little to no success. Hobbes contends that the sovereign should not only rule, but should have no limits on his authority. He seems to dislike the fact that there may be checks and balances for the sovereign to rule. Without these checks and balances, however, how will society be ensured that the rules of society are being enforced correctly? It seems that in Hobbes’ moral theory, the sovereign lies above the moral plane of the average citizen. He/she would have to in order to have the ability to enforce the contract. But what is it to say that once in such a position, the sovereign would not abuse this upper hand he’s been given to choose what he wants to enforce and not enforce? And also, the sovereign seems to have an imbalance of power when compared to society. While in his position, the sovereign, like many dictators do, can use manipulation tactics like fear and security to result in him having even more power. Hobbes does not account for this nearly as well as he should have, just merely saying that this state is better than the state of nature. Really? Says who?

---