Early one morning, you awake to the
sound of galloping horses permeating the walls of your small, dark, cottage in
the English countryside. You cower beneath the windowpane as you steal a glance
out through the dirty glass. You see soldiers milling in the town square but
cannot distinguish if they are Parliamentarian Roundheads, or Royalist
Cavaliers. You duck beneath a chest when the soldiers shift their gaze towards
your cottage, unsure of their intentions. Either party could be here to recruit
supporting men, but could just as easily be planning an attack. There is no
consistent justice as each party has different views of such. You think to
yourself, “To this warre of every man
against every man this also is consequent…nothing can be Unjust. The notion of
right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place.”[1]
You can no longer trust anyone, not even the neighbors you grew up next to; you
never know who they support. Your heart skips a beat, as if it thinks they
might leave if it stays quiet. You become frozen with fear for your security
and crumble under the anxiety the uncertainty each day brings.
This
state, the ‘state of nature’ as defined by Thomas Hobbes, was the condition in
which the philosopher lived the majority of his life. Determined to resolve the
moral issue of civil war, Hobbes constructs the social contract in which
citizens give up individual liberties to gain access to the benefits (security)
of a state with a unified, ruling force. However, in trying to solve the
security dilemma of civil wars, Hobbes puts into place a force that could be
just as vicious and brutal as Hobbes’ state of nature. As explored in Georgio
Agamben’s The State Of Exception, individuals
lose their security as Hobbes’ aristocratic Leviathan inevitably succumbs to
the natural impulse towards self-interest and is corrupted by absolute power. Such
can be proven by the recent state of exception entered into in Nov. 2012 by Egyptian
president Mohamed Morsi. By expanding
his presidential authority and removing his actions from the scope of judicial
review, Morsi’s use of the state of exception positions him as a modern-day
Leviathan, on the road to complete totalitarianism.
Born in an era of
brutal, British civil wars, Thomas Hobbes was constantly afraid for his safety
and unsure where the next attack might strike. Hobbes cowers beneath the covers
as the Parliament stages an uprising against the King. With memories of the Guy
Fawkes rebellion still looming in the minds of many, King Charles is tried and
executed by Parliament and civil wars between Catholics and Protestants wage
on. With the execution of the King comes the denouncement of the ‘Divine right
of Kings’ a previously-held belief that exalts sovereign rulers as divinely
chosen for the duty of ruling, by God himself. Additionally, the public idea of
natural subordination begins to dissipate. Discontent with the idea that some
individuals may be natural-born followers, citizens begin to question their
government. Lines are drawn, sides are chosen, and conventions are discarded.
And so, Hobbes’ social theory is born in response to the upheaval of concepts
that previously dominated the social and political spheres.
Hobbes can barely
handle this radical instability. He lives in perpetual fear of looming attacks.
He concludes that the state of nature is a state of war. A state in which one
must always be prepared to defend one’s Right of nature (the liberty to self
preservation at all costs). Hobbes
claims that “… the life of man, (is) solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short”[2]
when existing in a state of nature. He theorizes that no civil society can
exist successfully in this state because no luxury or industry can be afforded
with such incessant fear of attack living permanently, in the forefront of the
mind. He believes that war is not simply violence, but the mental state of
constant fear and anxiety of attack. Hobbes’ anxiety spills over into his
perspective on human nature as he begins to consider humans as they are
naturally (outside of society). Hobbes has a bleak view of human nature and
sees humans as capable of very immoral things. He reasons that war is driven by
self-interest, and humans, consumed as they are with self-interest, therefore
occupy a natural state of war. Hobbes then concludes that war is a moral
problem.
Casting away the
tenants of both Catholic and Protestant faiths, Hobbes sets out to use reason
alone to support his theory of natural law, in order to provide insight into
human nature and thus create a solution for the moral issue of civil war. He argues that “Where there is no common
power, there is no Law…”[3]
and that what is missing from nature is one, over-arching, unified, force. This
force, Hobbes claims, is the Leviathan: an all-powerful sovereign to strictly
enforce laws and to serve as a single figure for all citizens to fear in a
unified manner. Hobbes cannot accept a government based on a civil rebellion,
as such will justify rebellion as the accepted mode of political expression and
perpetuate the internal warring. Hobbes thus introduces the social contract, a
construct of civil society in which individuals forgo their liberties to the right
of nature by leaving their state of nature and ascribing to one predictable
leader, in order to gain the security of a civil society.
While the Leviathan
may temporarily help Hobbes’ security dilemma, there seems to be something
unsettling about this prudentially-driven theory, given Hobbes’ previously
admitted, pessimistic views of human nature. It seems that Hobbes is operating
on the lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in order to fulfill his need
for security, and is therefore incapable of seeing the self-actualizing
qualities required for a thriving civil society, such as morality, respect for others,
lack of prejudice etc., that the
Leviathan figure lacks. However, given
Hobbes’ setting of social upheaval as combined with his near obsession for
security, it is not surprising the philosopher has missed a few stitches in his
theoretical knit-work. And so, ignoring
the possible repercussions, Hobbes transcends traditional laws to instate an
all-powerful leader, in order to allow him to solve society’s crisis. The issue
here is, once this threshold of power is reached, there is no going back.
Cue Georgio Agamben and his State of
Execption. Agamben’s 2005 book, The State
Of Exception, outlines precisely this problem. According to the Italian philosopher, “In
every case, the state of exception marks a threshold at which logic and praxis blur with each other and a pure
violence without logos claims
to realize an enunciation without any real reference”[4]
In other words, Agamben argues that when the laws of a state are bent, suspended,
or extended, with the intention of remedying a state of emergency, (this is by
definition, the state of exception) the state rarely shifts back. Instead, the
state remains in a prolonged state of exception, which eventually strips
citizens of their liberties.
Hobbes intends and expects his
Leviathan to consistently, and justly, use his extended power to solve the
social crisis in the community. However, Hobbes does not count on the inevitability
of human corruption in response to total power. This is the reason the state of
exception characteristically descends into totalitarian dictatorships. While
modern ‘Leviathan’ leaders claim to use their unrivaled power to safeguard the
society (often under the guise of a controlled and ‘protected’ democracy), Agamben
states, “A "protected democracy" is not a democracy
at all, and the paradigm of constitutional dictatorship functions instead as a
transitional phase that leads inevitably to the establishment of a totalitarian
regime.”[5] Ironiclly,
citizens will thus lose the communal benefits, for which they sacrificed their
individual liberties to attain in the first place. Proving, that without a true
democracy, the social contract itself is a farce. These citizens would have
been better off in their original state of nature, taking their chances against
each other in internal civil war, than delivering power to an almighty ‘defender’.
Once the state of exception has been breached, these citizens will not only be
left without security, but they will have to fight a civil war against the
government while simultaneously guarding themselves against the masses of
un-unified individuals. Agamben agrees in saying, “…modern totalitarianism can
be defined as the establishment, by means of the state of exception, of a legal
civil war that allows for the physical elimination not only of political
adversaries but of entire categories of citizens who for some reason cannot be
integrated into the political system.”[6] So it would seem, that Hobbes is pulling
himself out of the pan by throwing himself (and everyone else) into the fire,
by propositioning his Leviathan. Benjamin
Franklin once said “They who can give
up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither
liberty nor safety.”[7] The matter of deserving aside, The fact
remains that Hobbes’ society will receive neither liberty nor safety under rule
of the Leviathan.
Agamben uses
historical examples such as The French Revolution; the governments of each of
the warring nations of World War I; and Article 48 of Germany’s Weimar
constitution (which he claims inevitably positioned Hitler’s Nazi regime to
take hold), to better outline his theory of exception.[8]
However, one does not need to turn to history books to recount the role played
by the state of exception in the emergence of various totalitarian regimes.
Such a dilemma can be seen unfolding presently in Egypt under the rule of recently-elected
president, Mohamed Morsi.
In 2011 Egyptian
citizens staged a successful revolution in response to grievances such as
unreasonable state of emergency laws, absence of freedom a speech and general political
failure on the part of the Egyptian leaders. The revolution was motivated by
the success of the Tunisian revolution and has since become one in a string of Middle-eastern
revolutions now being called the “Arab Spring” movement. As a result of the
revolution, Egypt has democratically elected Mohamed Morsi (of the Muslim
Brotherhood) as it’s new president. In the early months of his presidency,
Morsi reinstates an Islamist-stacked parliament, refuses constitutional
provisions made by the Supreme Council of The Armed Forces to limit
presidential power, and states his desire for a newly drafted constitution altogether.
These bold moves “are seen as escalating the power struggle
between Morsi…and the military.”[9] according
to a recent Al Jazeera report on the matter. Morsi is effectively driving a
wedge between the military and the presidency, encouraging the political conditions
needed for Agamben’s legal civil war to erupt.
On
November 22nd, 2012, Morsi confirms the suspicions of his
totalitarian motivations by making a declaration vowing to protect his
constituent assembly (currently drafting his new constitution) from judicial
interference. The decree consolidates Morsi’s power and immunizes him from
judicial review. Morsi claims this
decree works to support the revolutionary goals of abolishment of the old regime,
as well as "principles of freedom, justice and
democracy."[10]
However, the leader’s declaration
to “take the necessary actions and measures to protect the
country and the goals of the revolution”[11]
sounds more like Morsi’s Leviathan-esque grab for political power via the state
of exception. In response to public
opposition, Morsi has stated repeatedly that the decree is temporary, as its
effects will only hold until after the constitution is ratified. Luckily for
Egypt, the citizens aren’t buying it. As
if the Egyptians have read Agamben’s book, the public’s reaction seems to imply
that these citizens are completely aware (although outraged) of what Morsi is
up to. Refusing to allow Morsi the first
footholds of power via State of exception (as that foothold has proven to be
all it takes for a full-blown totalitarian dictator to immerge), Egyptian
citizens have taken to the streets in a second wave of protests and riots.
While
the persistent efforts of the Egyptian people to secure a fair, democratic
government are admirable, installing a leader with exceptionally extended power
has led the nation into more turmoil than they bargained for. With the country buzzing with tension and civil
unrest, conditions seem prime for both a citizen’s war of rebellion, and a legal
civil war between the military and presidency.
And thus, The Egyptians find themselves in a state worse than nature. The
nation still suffers civil discord, but the citizens suffer a loss of liberties
as well. With hopes of increased security dashed, Egypt must now strong arm Morsi
out of his extended power if they hope to avoid his unbridled control.
While
Hobbes may have been mistaken in promoting a Leviathan to quell civil
squabbling, he was certainly correct in his fear of perpetual civil war. Egypt has become the living, breathing
realization of Hobbes’s worst nightmare, as it has become evident that
rebellion and protest have each assumed an accepted role as legitimate modes of
political expression in the restless nation.
From a personal standpoint, the Egyptian protestors could be viewed as
courageous or inspiring for repeatedly standing up to a failed government.
However, from a political point of view, Egypt can be seen as an organizational
atrocity. The nation has developed strong ties of unity, which bind the community
together via a shared animosity for centralized government. Yet the direct result of such is a distrust
for those in charge, fostered by a disconnect between leaders and
citizens. What then, will happen when
Egypt eventually elects the honorable, democratic leader they hope for, and he
puts into place a tax, law, or procedure that irks the citizens? Will a population, trained in rebellion and
learned in it’s past success, simply turn to picket lines and riots every time
a piece of legislation does not suit them?
It seems that only a true democracy, driven directly by the people, can
pull Egypt, and Hobbes, from civil unrest.
[1]
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan (1651)
chaps. 13
[2]
Hobbes, Thomas, Solving The Problem Of Civil War. (sec.13)
[3]
Hobbes, Thomas, Solving The Problem Of Civil War. (sec.13
[4]
Agamben, Georgio. The State Of Exception p. 40
[5]
Agamben, Giorgio. "A Brief History
of the State of Exception." University of Chicago Press, n.d. Web. 18 Dec.
2012.
[7]
Benjamin Franklin
[8]
"Giorgio Agamben. The State of
Exception - Der Ausnahmezustand." Giorgio Agamben. The European
Graduate School, n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2012.
[9]
"Egypt's
president asserts authority over army". Al Jazeera. 12 August 2012. Archived from the original on 12 August 2012. Retrieved 12 August 2012.
[10]
"English Text of Morsi's Constitutional
Declaration - Politics - Egypt - Ahram Online.". Ahram Online, n.d. Web.
18 Dec. 201
[11]
see footnote 9
No comments:
Post a Comment