Muslim World Report

Rethinking Sovereignty: Hobbes' Leviathan in Today's Political Climate

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 22, 2025 1:44 PM | 7 min read | 1427 words

TL;DR: Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, though written in the 17th century, remains remarkably relevant in today’s political landscape. This post explores how Hobbes’ insights on authority, governance, and the social contract can inform modern political struggles, particularly in relation to sovereignty, collective action, and the impact of imperialism. A decolonized perspective on Hobbes can foster a more inclusive understanding of governance that respects local traditions and the collective will of the people.

The Enduring Relevance of Leviathan in a Globalized World

The recent resurgence of interest in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan and its iconic cover art serves as more than a nostalgia trip into political philosophy; it highlights the urgent need to reconsider how we understand authority, governance, and societal contracts in our contemporary milieu.

The Leviathan cover symbolizes Hobbes’ argument that to maintain order and security, people collectively relinquish certain freedoms to a sovereign power. This dynamic, while conceived in the 17th century, carries profound implications today, as governance is increasingly scrutinized through the lens of imperialism, authoritarianism, and communal agency.

The seemingly unending cycle of war and instability in regions like the Middle East, coupled with the rise of populist regimes worldwide, underscores the complexities of sovereignty and the state. Hobbes’ political theory brings to the forefront the critical question: whose will is represented by those in power?

As imperial interests often overshadow the collective needs of oppressed populations, the lessons of Leviathan become increasingly crucial. The global implications of Hobbes’ work resonate deeply as nations grapple with their identities, seek security, and question the legitimacy of external influences that compromise their sovereignty. This reflection on Hobbes can serve as a clarion call for Muslim nations and communities to critically assess their political structures and the extent to which they reflect the will of their people versus external pressures (Cooper, 2022; King, Pan, & Roberts, 2013).

Understanding Hobbes in Today’s Context

Hobbes’ portrayal of the state as an “Artificial Man” with a sovereign authority that derives its power from the collective surrender of individual rights is particularly relevant in contemporary governance. The challenge we face today is twofold:

  • Ensuring Sovereign Power Serves the People: How can societies ensure that this power is exercised to protect and serve the populace rather than oppress it?
  • Engaging with Hobbesian Theory: The Muslim World Report urges a deep engagement with Hobbes’ Leviathan not merely as a historical artifact but as a text that challenges contemporary political actors to rethink authority and sovereignty in a way that genuinely represents the interests of their constituents (Venugopal, 2015).

What If Historical Narratives Shift?

What if the portrayal of Hobbes’ theories and the narratives surrounding sovereignty were fundamentally re-evaluated in light of the current geopolitical climate? Such a shift could yield profound transformations in how authority is viewed and enacted globally.

  • Decolonizing Perspectives: For too long, Western perspectives have dominated narratives about governance, often marginalizing non-Western interpretations that offer valuable insights into authority and community dynamics.
  • New Conversations: A reinvigoration of Hobbes’ ideas through a decolonized lens could challenge the prevailing imperialist narratives that prioritize state sovereignty over human rights.

This reframing would enable Muslim-majority countries to reassess their own political structures and historical experiences. By engaging seriously with Hobbes’ social contract theory, these societies might inspire movements aimed at reclaiming agency and representation from states that operate primarily under external influences (Doucette & Kang, 2017; McGinnis & Ostrom, 2011).

Moreover, such a shift could foster a global discourse acknowledging the interconnectedness of struggles against imperialism while honoring unique historical contexts. This reimagined understanding of sovereignty could unite diverse groups advocating for justice and representation, fostering solidarity across borders. The implications of this shift are tremendous, as nations confront the realities of governance in a deeply interconnected world.

What If Collective Action Emerges?

What if collective action among disillusioned citizens becomes a formidable force against authoritarianism and imperialism? The recent global surge in social movements exemplifies the power of grassroots mobilization in challenging existing political orders.

  • Demanding Accountability: Drawing on Hobbes’ notion of the social contract, people might unite to demand accountability from those in power, reasserting their rights to actively participate in governance.
  • Transforming Political Landscapes: The potential for collective action to reshape political landscapes is underscored by the experiences of numerous contemporary movements.

This scenario is already unfolding in various contexts, from the Arab Spring to recent protests in Iran, where citizens have voiced their discontent with corrupt regimes. Leveraging Hobbesian principles could further galvanize these movements, transitioning them from spontaneous unrest to organized, strategic actions demanding systemic change (Staniland, 2012; Löwenheim, 2008).

Strategic Maneuvers for All Players

To navigate the complexities of contemporary governance shaped by Hobbesian principles, various stakeholders must adopt strategic maneuvers that prioritize the voice of the people while reckoning with the realities of power dynamics:

For Governments:

  • Fostering Inclusive Political Systems: Engage citizens in the decision-making process through decentralizing power and enhancing local governance frameworks.
  • Enhancing Civic Engagement: Establish platforms for civic engagement, such as town hall meetings and participatory budgeting processes (McGinnis & Ostrom, 2011; Diamond, 1994).

For Civil Society Organizations:

  • Facilitating Dialogue: Leverage their positions to bridge divides and nurture a culture of cooperation through workshops, forums, and educational campaigns centered around Hobbes’ principles.
  • Raising Awareness: Advocate for a more equitable distribution of power by fostering solidarity among movements (Caporaso, 1996; Wapner, 1995).

For International Actors:

  • Amplifying Local Voices: Ensure that assistance prioritizes grassroots movements and empowers communities over perpetuating existing power asymmetries.
  • Redirecting Resources: Promote initiatives that enhance democratic governance, human rights education, and community engagement (Chan, 2018; Cooper, 2022).

The Challenges Ahead

Despite the potential for positive change, the road to inclusive governance remains fraught with challenges:

  • Entrenched Authoritarian Regimes: The influence of external powers complicates efforts to implement Hobbesian principles of political engagement.
  • Rise of Misinformation: Citizens must be educated about their rights and the social contract to empower them to engage meaningfully.

Integrating Hobbesian thought into contemporary governance must contend with these realities. Digital platforms can aid civic education, fostering a more informed citizenry prepared to engage actively (Walter & Suina, 2018).

Furthermore, the intersectionality of various movements—whether based on class, gender, or ethnicity—must be acknowledged. Efforts toward reform must be inclusive and representative of diverse perspectives, moving away from top-down approaches that often fail to reflect the realities on the ground.

Rethinking Authority Through a Decolonized Lens

Revisiting Hobbes’ Leviathan through a decolonized lens offers an opportunity to critique existing narratives about authority and governance:

  • Honoring Non-Western Traditions: Recognizing diverse forms of authority and understanding local histories, customs, and traditions in shaping governance structures.
  • Balancing Freedoms and Responsibilities: Emphasizing the social contract as a living document can help establish governance frameworks that prioritize community welfare while respecting individual rights.

In this light, reconsidering Hobbes’ theories can serve as a foundation for developing new political paradigms that promote justice and equity in governance. This requires collective efforts to engage in dialogue, share knowledge, and build coalitions that transcend boundaries, allowing for the emergence of comprehensive and inclusive governance models.

References

  • Caporaso, J. A. (1996). Globalization, sovereignty, and the challenge of governance. International Studies Quarterly, 40(4), 417-445.
  • Chan, J. (2018). The role of international actors in promoting local governance. International Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 123-145.
  • Cooper, R. (2022). Imperialism and the legitimacy of state power. Political Studies Review, 15(1), 67-85.
  • Diamond, L. (1994). Towards democratic consolidation. Journal of Democracy, 5(3), 4-17.
  • Doucette, J., & Kang, J. (2017). Rethinking authority in Asia: Lessons from Hobbes. Asian Journal of Political Science, 25(1), 1-20.
  • Elsey, B. (2008). Global struggles and the quest for justice. Global Studies Quarterly, 12(1), 23-37.
  • Held, D. (2003). Globalization and the challenge of collective action. Theory, Culture & Society, 20(1), 98-103.
  • Ikenberry, G. J. (2018). The end of liberal international order? International Studies Quarterly, 62(1), 1-16.
  • King, G., Pan, J., & Roberts, M. (2013). How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. American Political Science Review, 107(2), 1-18.
  • Löwenheim, O. (2008). The re-emergence of collective action. Comparative Political Studies, 41(6), 785-810.
  • McGinnis, M. D., & Ostrom, E. (2011). Reflections on the workshop in political theory and policy analysis. Journal of Political Theory, 19(3), 307-319.
  • Slater, D. (2013). Conceptualizing and measuring state capacity. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 516-528.
  • Staniland, P. (2012). The political logic of military organizations. The Journal of Politics, 74(2), 343-359.
  • Venugopal, R. (2015). Hobbes’ Leviathan and contemporary governance. Political Theory Review, 34(2), 159-183.
  • Walter, J., & Suina, M. (2018). Education and civic engagement in a global context. Education and Society, 36(3), 297-311.
  • Wapner, P. (1995). Environmental activism and world civic politics. Global Environmental Politics, 1(3), 1-25.
← Prev Next →