The Last Social Contract, Chapter 3: Leviathan
“This is the generation of that great Leviathan, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence: For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the Commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred on him that, by terror thereof, he is enabled to form the wills of them all, to peace at home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad.”
Thomas Hobbes, “The Leviathan”
Introduction
How many wars and tragedies could have been avoided, if only the humankind had decided earlier to create not many but just one Leviathan, a silent guardian of peace, an immortal defender of the human race… But it was necessary for our learning to suffer in the past in order to, gradually, go through the process of creating one single entity capable of protecting us all. The entire history of our kind has been but a series of lessons, necessary to teach us how much we can gain by cooperating instead of fighting each other. We have been capable of exiting the original state of anarchy by creating governments and armies to protect us. However, the sole existence of multiple armies, and governments, has inevitably produced awful and countless wars in the past. But the time has come for us to finally reach the true “end of history”! The formula for a world without wars has been revealed, and it is now time to finally seal that ultimate social contract, thus completing our long political evolution.
Let us then wait no longer and finally disclose the form of our mighty protector.
Sovereignty
Only in the dawn of mankind has man been truly and totally sovereign. And such a total lack of limits to what any man can or cannot do has produced a situation of war of all against all, where no one could be safe. Thus, since the formation of the first tribes and clans, or associations of any kind, man has learned to renounce to part of his sovereignty in behalf of a greater power which acted in his and at the same time everyone’s benefit. Thus, it is not too difficult to understand that any kind of social contract, from the most primitive to the most complex, requires a delegation of powers. The only way for nations to be completely sovereign is to give them the power to do everything that they intend doing, without any restraints of any kind. Naturally, this means that any nation, if it so intends, can decide to invade the territory of another, or to steal the resources that are the property of another, or to kill or imprison foreigners. It also means that, if two nations disagree on a certain matter, are unable to resolve the dispute through dialogue, and fail to accept the mediation of a third party or that mediation is ineffective, then they must resort to war in order to settle the dispute. Thus, a world where nations are fully sovereign is also a world where nations and their citizens can never be safe. The condition here described is one of war of every nation against every nation. The only way to avoid this condition of constant war is to transfer part of the sovereign of the nations to a higher entity: a world federation of nations. Total sovereignty (the ability to do everything one intends to) is not positive and should be avoided. The solution is a world where power is divided between many entities inserted in a global framework. I envisage a world federation where competencies are distributed between the three essential levels of government: regional, national and international. Whenever it is possible, governments should be as close as possible to the citizens, because this allows for more efficiency and popular participation. However, some competencies are better handled by a superior level of power, national, which will still hold a great power, primarily legislative. Concentrating the coercive power in an international level of government will allow nations to dedicate their resources to serving the people instead of allocating them to defence. Furthermore, conflicts between nations will no longer be solved by wars, but can instead be solved by an international court of justice, similar to the existent European Court of Justice. In a world federation where power is divided between multiple levels of governance, there is no such thing as absolute sovereignty. In a world where such a thing exists, order cannot be present at the same time, because absolute sovereignty also implies total lack of limits. That said, to transfer a part of one’s sovereignty does not mean transferring all of it. Nations can retain all of their prerogatives except for one: the power to wage war. The first and foremost prerogative of the federation must be to preserve order and peace, and allow the national and regional governments to serve the people efficiently.
Membership
From the moment when nations join the world federation, they give up many powers, and they do so willingly. This procedure can be currently observed in many international organizations, but most prominently in the EU. Since from the moment when they join the federation nations will have to respond to a higher power, it is important to clarify which powers they will keep, and which powers they will lose. In particular, it is important to establish if nations will be able to leave the federation after they become members, or if the contract is permanent and irrevocable. I argue that nations should conserve the option to leave the federation when they so desire. Although this option diminishes to some extent the degree of stability and cohesion of the union on the short run, it has vital advantages on the long run. Firstly, it is a mechanism that can prevent civil wars; when the southern states decided to secede from the USA in the nineteenth century, the union alleged that their action was illegal, and did not allow the southern states to peacefully abandon the federation. The result was a bloody civil war that cost millions of lives. Such an event could have been avoided if the states had been allowed to peacefully abandon the union. Secondly, the option to peacefully abandon the union at any time grants more legitimacy to the federation. The federation should always remain a voluntary union of republics. The ultimate social contract should work in a way that all parties involved agree with the conditions of the agreement, not only when they first join the union, but always. It should not be expected that the parties agree to belong to a perpetual union, but rather it should be agreed that the parties will respect the agreement up to the moment they decide that it is not in their interest to belong to the union anymore. This option is essential in order to maximize the legitimacy of the union and to avoid civil wars.
Constitution
The term constitution is somewhat ambiguous. The term is usually used for nations, and it is commonly a set of the fundamental rules of the republic it applies to. In a way, every political organization has a constitution, but only some have explicit constitutions. In other words, every political organization has a fundamental set of rules, but only some have a document called constitution where all those rules are written down. Countries like the USA, Portugal, Spain or France have formal constitutions, whereas countries like New Zealand, Great Britain or Israel do not have actual constitutions but still have a fundamental set of rules. International organizations commonly do not have a formal constitution like Spain or France, but still have a fundamental set of rules in the same way as Great Britain or New Zealand do. The EU almost approved a formal constitution, but it was ultimately rejected by the Europeans. Nevertheless, the EU has a set of treaties which establish the fundamental rules of the organization like any national formal constitution would. Obviously, the world federation would need to have a set of fundamental rules, and those rules should be gathered in a single document called the constitution of the world federation. The document should establish the terms of the social contract, that is, in which conditions do nations join the federation. It must also determine the competences and powers of the federation and the nations, as well as determining which organs the federation has, their functioning, competences and powers. The prerogatives and functions of the federative institutions should not be extensive, but rather thin. This will allow the nations to keep their own laws and political systems, and restrict the functions of the federation to the maintenance of peace.
Institutions
The world federation must be composed by three institutions: 1) A Council of Nations, in charge of negotiating, writing and ratifying the treaties, including the constitution; 2) A Coercive Authority, in charge of protecting the federation from the external enemies and maintaining the order within the federation; and 3) A Court of Justice, in charge of solving conflicts between nations, between the nations and the federation, and competent to interpret and enforce the treaties of the federation, especially the constitution.
The Council of Nations is the assembly of all the representatives of the member-states, who negotiate, write and ratify the treaties of the federation, by unanimous decision. The council first meeting is the original social contract that will create the world federation. The first treaty produced by the council is the constitution of the federation. All new members of the federation must ratify the constitution in order to join the union, and their application must be accepted by all existing members before they can do so.
The Coercive Authority is the combination of the federal army, the federal police and the military leadership which controls both. The federal army exists to defend the federation against its external enemies, as well as to make sure that nations do not attack each other. The federal police are in charge of fighting crime in the federation, and therefore assist the national and regional police forces in that function. The leadership controls the army and the police, and is appointed by the council of nations for a short period of time. The military leadership can also be removed by the council of nations if it exceeds its competences.
Finally, the Court of Justice is in charge of solving the disputes between countries, the disputes between the federation and its member-states, to interpret the treaties and to enforce them. The decisions of the court of justice are binding for every national, federal and regional institution, and are enforced by the coercive authority.
Identity
To many people, national identity is a very important thing. People with nationalist inclinations would probably see a world federation distrustfully, since they would regard it as a direct threat to the power of nations. This is true in the sense that nations would no longer be totally sovereign, yet a world federation, built in this way, would not threaten or dissipate national identities anymore than the EU has erased European national identities or the OAE has erased national identities in the Americas. A world federation would not change traditions or even laws in the existent nations, but it would only prevent them from destroying each other, thus benefiting all of us, no matter one’s nationality.
Conclusion
In this paper I have argued that the creation of a world federation is highly desirable for the future well being of the human race. I have explained, in chapter 1, why the state of the world today is one of anarchy and why that state is not desirable. In the second chapter I have argued that a revised formula of the social contract is what we need in order to leave the state of anarchy and guarantee world peace. In the final chapter I have put forward a model of political organization that can maintain the independence of nations in almost every sense and preserve national identities while preventing conflicts between nations and avoiding both civil and international wars.
Almost 400 years ago Thomas Hobbes wrote his most famous work “The Leviathan”, founding modern political philosophy and starting the social contract tradition. He experienced on first hand the horrors of a civil war, and provided an answer for that kind of situation in the form of “his” Leviathan. However, in order to escape from another kind of anarchy, a anarchy of nations, a new kind of Leviathan must be created, one that is so powerful that can control entire nations, and at the same time is so weak that it is not capable of doing anything without the consent of the people who appoints it and who I serves. So let us create this new Leviathan, a powerful but benign monster, the only one who can protect us against the anarchy of nations.
Posts
