Leviathan by Hobbes: A New Structure of State

This essay discusses the new structure of state proposed by Hobbes in Leviathan and how it differs from Machiavelli's principality and republics. It explores the importance of social contract and sovereignty in the government. The essay concludes by stating that the new governments of the countries must apply the strategy of 'neither' to succeed in their quest to reign supreme.

Running head: POLITICAL SCIENCE
Political Science
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1POLITICAL SCIENCE
Introduction
Leviathan is considered a very implicit term in the history of politics to know about the serious
matters within the government and its handling of the state. Both Hobbes and Machiavelli have
argued in defending their beliefs and establishing them properly (Machiavelli 1940). The
Republics and the principalities are fundamental aspects of the discussion on the growth and
structure of the states. Hobbes has discussed several things about the structure of the rules and
which one is ideal. The proper construction of the states by Hobbes should be overviewed in this
essay. In the Leviathan by Hobbes, he has discussed this issue from several aspects. Hobbes has
given the idea of a new structure of the state, i.e. utterly different from that described by
Machiavelli in his The Prince.
Description of Leviathan by Hobbes
It has been mentioned in the works of Machiavelli that all the states or countries should
be divided into principalities or the republics. According to Machiavelli, the principalities are
generally ruled by the solitary individuals as the King or the Prime Minister or something like
that (Hobbes 2016) However, the republics are governed by a group of people indeed
(Machiavelli 1940). As Hobbes began to get into the picture, he had mentioned of a state that
could no longer be divided into the two categories like the principality or a republic. As the
thoughts about the governance of the states advance, Hobbes had begun to combine the two
types of states into a new one that would give birth to a new sense of political thought. This new
kind of political opinion will be utterly different from that of Machiavelli. According to Hobbes
the power of running the state or the country should be in the hands of the people. Hobbes has
not at all supported the armed prophets indeed. He has always supported the control of the
country to be in the hands of the ordinary people (Hobbes 2016)

2POLITICAL SCIENCE
The argument against the principality and republics
The viewpoint of Hobbes can be supported very much since society is not just a place
where the people merely live. The people in the community must have a surrounding in which
they can live their lives happily and safely. The comfort in the entities is also very much
necessary indeed. This is why the principality or republic opinions by Machiavelli could be
stated as vague since the people would only be able to survive in that close (Hobbes 2016). It has
to be remembered that all the rights should be transferred to the sovereignty of the people so they
could be able to live a safe and comfortable life indeed. There are several threats to the state of
nature, and it is essential that it should be brought down (Hobbes 2016) The political existence of
the sovereign nations will be very important for the betterment of the society indeed. If the
people elect the sovereign state, it should be reasonably able to protect the rights of all the people
within the nation in an equal manner (Machiavelli 1940). So, the idea of the principality or the
republic can be turned down, and the new concept of the state could be practiced regarding
sovereign states. In the sovereign state, there would be no ruler but a representative who would
be the voice of all the people within the society (Hobbes 2016). In the concept of Leviathan, the
establishment of the state is done through the Commonwealth employing a social contract.
Hobbes has very carefully discussed the matters to ground his theory in the best manner.
Apart from that, he has maintained the difference with the two deciphers of Machiavelli, namely
principality and the republics. The Leviathan state is the one that is similar to the principality
when the sovereign power is given to one single person, and he controls all the things within the
state. All the citizens of the country would give their rights to the person with the sovereign
power indeed (Hobbes 2016). According to Hobbes if the government is divided into some parts,
it would not be able to survive indeed. This is why there can only be one single sovereign power

3POLITICAL SCIENCE
within the state. The political thought of Hobbes has been very much essential to set up the
parliamentary codes in several countries (Hobbes 2016)
Hobbes had always believed that human beings would have to work correctly within the
society without the fear of constant death (Machiavelli 1940). Only then the people would be
able to attain a peaceful and comfortable life that would be more than just living merely. So, it is
indeed essential that the facts of principality and republics cannot be supported if people want to
attain a proper life within a peaceful society. The social contract would surely be made between
the people within the society and the people in power. This is why it must be remembered that
the ordinary people within the nation would surely have the ability to remove the persons in
power if they do not abide by the social contract properly. The state of nature will not be valid in
this context. However, another thing must be mentioned in speaking against the principality and
republics that the sovereign will surely possess unlimited power, but it should only act in a
manner to protect the people of the country. The laws made for the monarch will go on to allow
the commonwealth to fear the threat of deaths. The ideal structures of the government will thus
vary according to the needs of the people (Hobbes 2016)
However, to live a peaceful and comfortable life, the sovereign powers should always be
liable for protecting the people. The state of nature is not at all bound by the security of the
people, and this should be the most important fact for understanding the role of the people within
the society. Hobbes has argued rightly that human beings would not be able to live in peace if
this republics or principality fact continues within the community (Machiavelli 1940). The ideal
government should be the one which would consist of the social contract by agreeing mutually
with all the people (Hobbes 2016) This practice should not be in the society since the peace and
comfort within the community would be completely lost as well. The collective desire and will

4POLITICAL SCIENCE
of the individuals should be the most important fact for setting up the government in the best
ways indeed (Machiavelli 1940). However, it will also be essential to think outside the
Machiavellian concepts like the origin of the principles like principality and republics. Instead of
that, the collectivity of the desire of the individuals should be practised to form a better
government indeed. This better government will be able to serve the ordinary people of the state
by looking, after all, their problems.
Conclusion
As per the above discussion, the discussion paper can be concluded by saying that the
two forms of the government concerning on the principles like principality and republics should
not be supported. This is why the new structure of the government should be at the place of how
the states could be governed. As Hobbes has stated in his Leviathan, the states should be
governed with the suggestions from the ordinary people and their support. The Machiavellian
rule of principality has been regarded as obsolete in the current times. So, the new governments
of the countries must apply the strategy of ‘neither' to succeed in their quest to reign supreme.

5POLITICAL SCIENCE
References
.Hobbes, T., 2016. Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan (Longman Library of Primary Sources in
Philosophy). Routledge.
Machiavelli, N., 1940. The Prince and Discourses On the First Decade of Titus Livius. New
York: The Modern Library.