i

SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY: A HOBBESIAN APPROACH

BY

UCHENU, AUGUSTINE EKENE

DI/ 359

Being an Essay Submitted to the Department of Philosophy, Dominican Institute of Philosophy and Theology, Ibadan, in Affliation with the

University of Ibadan, Nigeria, in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Award of Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in Philosophy.

IBADAN

JUNE, 2010.

ii

CERTIFICATION This is to certify that this Long Essay titled: SOCIAL

CONTRACT THEORY: A HOBBESIAN APPROACH, is

submitted to the Department of Philosophy, Dominican Institute

of Philosophy and Theology Ibadan, in fulfillment for the

requirements for the Award of Bachelor of Arts Degree in

Philosophy from the University of Ibadan, is an original and

insightful research work, carried out by AUGUSTINE EKENE

UCHENU and was supervised and approved by Rev. Fr. (Dr.)

Faneye, Benedict, OP.

MODERATOR:

Date……………………. Sign…………………….

Rev. Fr. Faneye, Benedict, O. P.

Head of Philosophy Department,

Dominican Institute of Philosophy

And Theology, Ibadan, Nigeria.

iii

DEDICATION

This Research work is dedicated to my Heavenly

Mediator, Jesus and to the Queen of my life, Mother

Thrice Admirable, the Queen and Victress of

Schoenstatt. To my Earthly parents, Mr. Clement

Uchenu and Mrs. Ify Uchenu and to all who keep

mutual agreement in the world, especially in Nigeria.

iv

OUTLINE Page Title……………………………………………………………………..i

Certification……………………………………………………….………….ii

Dedication…………………………………………………………………...iii

Outline……………………………………………………….……………....iv

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………….vi

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………….viii

CHAPTER ONE: A SURVEY OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY….1

1.1 An Overview of Hobbes’ Life…………………………………....1

1.2 Background of Hobbes’ Political philosophy…………………….4

1.3 Emergence of Contract Theory…………………………………...7 1.4 Meaning of Social Contract Theory………….…………………17

CHAPTER TWO: THOMAS HOBBES’ SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY..20

2.1 The State of Nature……………………………………………...20 2.2 Man in the Original State of Nature…………………………….22 2.3 Hobbes’ Contract Theory……………………………………….25 2.4 The Sovereign and Power…………………………………….…27

CHAPTER THREE: THE LAW OF THE STATE………………………....30

3.1 What is Law?................................................................................31 3.2 Overview of Natural Law………………………………..……...33

v

3.3 Effects of the Civil Laws on the Contract Theory……………....37 3.4 The Rule of Justice……………………………………………...39

CHAPTER FOUR: RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE IN NIGERIA……….……...42

4.1 Survey of Religious Violence in Nigeria……………….……….43 4.2 Relevance of Social Contract to Religious Violence in Nigeria...…49

Critique of the Hobbes’ Social Contract Theory….…………….52 CONCLUSION………………………………………………….56

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………….......59

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge and appreciate gently the efforts of all those who in one

way or the other have helped me to accomplish this rigorous research work.

I want to begin by thanking the Almighty God and Blessed Virgin

Mary for continuous divine assistance throughout the period of writing this

essay. The next person I wish to appreciate, is my amiable Moderator, Rev.

Fr. Faneye, Benedict who heartily accepted to moderate this work and took

the pains, to guide me in the course of this research work, despite his very

tight schedule and nature of his job. I will not forget to mention the

wonderful and extraordinary contributions of Rev. Fr. Benjamin Kwagba to

the success of this essay. Fr., if I have another opportunity I would love to

come for the ‘second missionary journey’, I thank you for your kind gestures.

It is my joy to express my sincere gratitude to Fr. Alfred Kistler, ISCH,

the Superior of Schoenstatt Fathers’ Community in Nigeria, who voluntarily

guided me for my complete B. A Programme. I am also proud of all the

Schoenstatt students who supported me in one way or the other, especially

those who supplied me with necessary materials, ideas and helpful insights. I

would not forget to mention Bro. Stanley Ifeanyichukwu Obijiaku who helped

me to make corrections in this work before submission. My deepest gratitude

goes to my friends and co-operators: Emmanuel Nwabuo, Cajetan Okeke,

Ekweariri Martin, Olowojesiku Kemi, Olowojesiku Ope, Uzor Chidimma,

Princess Obioma, Wunmi Okechukwu Okpara, Agor Paschal, Tony

vii

Onyeuwoma, Ani Pedro, Okonkwo Edochie, Bob Dondon, Henry Dike,

Raymond Odo, Ogbonna Patrick, Okechukwu Jude (Ifite – Ogwari), and to the

rest of my philosophy brothers who helped me in no little ways.

With great joy I remember my family, (my Mother, Father, Brothers,

Sisters, Uncles, Cousins, Nephews, Aunts, and Nieces) Nwaogo Uchenu,

Nwaodu Uchenu, Ekweozor Uchenu, Thomas Uchenu, Xtopher Uchenu,

Udebunu Uchenu, Ngozi Uchenu, Victoria Oriaku Uchenu, Nonso Uchenu,

Chioma Uchenu, Ukamaka Uchenu, Nkiru Uchenu, Chidimma Uchenu, Izu

Uchenu, Emeka Uchenu, Ifeoma Uchenu, Ukoamaka Uchenu, Helen Uchenu,

Cynthia Uloma Uchenu, Jude Uchenu, Chinasa Uchenu, whose care and love

serve as inspiration for this project.

Special thanks to my beloved group brothers and friends: Oforka

Victory, Nwanguma Mike, Gbadamosi Ray, Enekwechi Nwike, Pepe Avule,

Chilobe Damian (De Bishop) and Ochie Bernard ( Ochie Power). I would not

forget to say thanks to my indomitable Prof. and friend, Fr. Justin Obuka

and to my generous brother and friend Dr. Tony Uchenu for the

encouragement and support they offered to me throughout my philosophical

studies. I owe a lot to all of you.

Finally, I appreciate all the Dominican Institute’s Lecturers that have

added to my knowledge, helped me in articulating and delivering my ideas

within these four years programme. May God bless and reward you abundantly

and lead you to impact more positive knowledge to the upcoming students.

viii

INTRODUCTION

Statement of Problem

It is in the nature of man to enjoy peace and he tries as much as possible to

have this peace1. But since all men desire this peace, the only way to achieve

it is by respecting each other, in all spheres of life. With this respect for each

other, peace and security are assured. The presence of security and the

consequent peace is a sign of a healthy habitable state.

But looking at our society today, security of life is no more and peace

has left its arena. Even where we all should search for peace (Religion) has

become a battle arena2. The average Nigerian has known the ravages of either

war or violence. The civil war of 1967 – 1970, ethnic clashes, religious

conflicts, political assassinations and menaces of robbery have characterized

our nation as a scene of ‘political and religious mockery’3. The leaders are

corrupt and sometimes tyrannical. Even the led are no less corrupt than the

leaders. In fact, lawlessness is the right word to qualify this situation of

Nigeria. The rule of law is no longer respected. Man is now afraid of his

fellow man. Trust has been betrayed on many occasions and some are of the

opinion that the best way to defend oneself in this warfront called Nigeria is

1Cf. C. B. MacPherson (1989), “History on Modern European Intellectual History” http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/hobbes.html (28 June, 2010). 2Cf. Dele Omotunde, “A Call for Peace” in Tell Magazine, no. 46, November 19, 2009, p.5. 3 Cf. Nathaniel Ndiokwere, Leaders and Followers (Owerri: Assumpta Press, 2003), p. 19.

ix

to offend each other’s and be ready to defend oneself at the expense of others.

As a result of this, our country has been thickly coated with human blood4.

In this climate of fear, man has not been able to actualize himself.

There is underdevelopment as foreign investors are scared of the Nigerian

situation. “We are culturally dead, economically dry, socially corrupt,

religiously fanatical and politically chaotic”5. We, Nigerians are plagued with

ignorance as our institutions are shut for long periods of time in the name of

religious crises. All this leads to fear in the Nigerian society. It is the concern

of this essay that this problem be solved.

Aim, Scope and Methodology

To this extent, this essay would consider the usefulness of Hobbes’ Social

Contract Theory to Religious Crises in Nigeria. Since Hobbes proposes that

man lived in a state of fear and lawlessness in the original state of nature and

the only way to deal with man’s problem is to elect a Leviathan with an

absolute power, to rule with the social contract terms and principles, therefore

we could use the same method to solve the problems of Nigerian state of fear

and lawlessness posed by crises.

One of the renowned English Philosophers, Thomas Hobbes (1588 –

1679) is chosen to be the lead philosopher here because he is well known for

his political thought. His vision of the world is very striking because he 4 Cf. John Chukwuorji, “Checks and Balances in Nigerian Political Situations” ,The Torch Magazine, 2010, p.23. 5 Dele Omotunde, p.23.

x

hypothetically traced the origin of human society and political leadership in

the States.

Our aim in this essay will not be to change the basic nature of

Hobbes’ social contract theory but to attempt an exposition of it. This essay is

not only meant for academic purposes but also to the practicality of

maintaining peace by proffering solutions to religious crises which bury

peace in our society, because Nigeria is a multi-religious entity, once there is

a religious crisis it motivates other crises. It will be within the exposition of

the religious crises from the transition from military rule to civilian rule from

1999 to 2010 in Nigeria.

This essay is divided into four chapters. Chapter one makes a survey

of the social contract theory. Here we will first explore briefly the life of

Thomas Hobbes, starting from his early life, studies, works and his last days

on earth. We will explore the background of Hobbes’ political philosophy,

the emergence of the social contract theory and its meaning. This will extend

our discussion to expound the views of the two contemporaries of Hobbes:

John Locke and Rousseau on the ideas of social contract. In chapter two, we

shall be occupied with Hobbes’ social contract theory; to expose his

discourse on the original state of nature and how it led to the proper contract

theory. For a good examination of the notion of the social contract theory, we

shall look at the Sovereign or Leviathan and its management of power. The

xi

sovereign or Leviathan has an absolute power according to Hobbes and can

punish any citizen that disobeys the contract.

In chapter three, we shall examine the concept of the law of the state.

Our primary task here is to expose what the law should be, achieve for the

citizens and how the Leviathan should apply the law to rule individuals in the

civil state. We shall be discussing natural law concisely in the light of Hobbes

and its relevance in administering the rule of justice in the state. Natural law is

important to this work because Hobbes tells us that in the state of nature each

person has a right (liberty) guided by reason to use all things and this reason

makes man to do things he deemed fit for the preservation of his life6.

According to Hobbes, the absence of jurisdiction is one of the causes

of the predicaments in the state of nature. In our discourse on law, we will

examine the rule of justice, expounding the real act of justice and what it

means to act unjustly. Hobbes asserts that the idea of justice was not in the

consciousness of people in the state of nature. However, in this new artificial

state, there is law, consequently treatment will be surely meted out to those

who may contradict this law.

Chapter four examines religious violence in Nigeria. The basic aim of

this chapter is to apply Hobbes’ social contract theory as a means to solving

religious conflicts in Nigeria. This chapter also makes a critical evaluation of

Hobbes’ social contract theory. 6 Cf. Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan (Ed.) Michael Oakshott (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1960), p. 80.

xii

CHAPTER ONE

A SURVEY OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

1.1 Brief Overview of Hobbes’ Life Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of the modern political philosophy

flourished between 1588 - 1679, in the west of England. He always regarded

himself as being timid because he remarked, “my mother gave birth to twins:

Fear and I are twins because she was frightened by the approach of the

Spanish Armada”7. Thomas Hobbes was educated properly at Malmesbury

where he became an extraordinary scholar in Greek and Latin, and at Oxford

where he upheld his deep interest in classical literature and became familiar

with the ongoing theological controversies of the time. Hobbes also did

elementary logic and Aristotelian physics.

In 1608, he became a tutor in the Devonshire family and later worked

as a secretary to the son of William Cavendish. This family maintained a

close relationship with Hobbes throughout his stay in London. In these

circumstances, he came to know some of the ‘prestigious politicians of the

time and literary men of his days’ of whom were Francis Bacon and Ben

Johnson. In 1610, Hobbes was in France and Italy on a visit, getting a first

glimpse of the intellectual life of the continent and returning with a decision

to become a scholar. The next eighteen years which he spent mostly at

7 Maurice Cranston, “Thomas Hobbes” In Makers of Modern Thought, ed. Bruce

Mazlish, (New York: American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc., 1956), p. 113.

xiii

Chatsworth were the germinating period of his future intellectual interests

and activities.8

At this period, Hobbes had turned to the classics to really gain an

understanding of his life and of philosophy, which he presumed could not be

attained in the schools. He decided to translate Thucydides into English after

a period of reading and reflection. According to Hobart R.E., “like

Thucydides, Hobbes believes that history was written for instruction, and he

wished to instruct his countrymen on the dangers of democracy”9. In 1628,

when Hobbes published his translation, Charles I had been on the throne for

three years and already a loggerheads with Sir John Eliot and John Pym.

Hobbes’ translation was the first attempt to bring his people to their senses

and made them a way of the tragedy that they courted: that of civil war, from

which proceeded slaughter, solitude and the want of all things.10

Hobbes accepted to teach the son of Sir Gervase Clinton, with whom

he stayed for three years. This period was marked by Hobbes’ discovery of

the intellectual world of Mathematics and Geometry, a world so important to

the continental philosophers of his time. Meanwhile, he had been totally

ignorant of this world.11 The discovery greatly renewed his mind, gave him

8 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, p.9 . 9Hobart, R.E. “Thomas Hobbes”, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 3 and 4, Ed.

P. Edwards, 1972 Ed., p. 31. 10 Cf. Ibid., p.32. 11 Cf. James Collins, A History of Modern European Philosophy (Milwaukee: The

Bruce Publishing Company, 1954), p. 112.

xiv

new zeal and direction to his philosophical reflections.12 This marked the

domination of Hobbes’ mind by philosophy.

Hobbes came in contact with Galileo near Florence on his last

European tour (1634 – 1637), and above all, with Mersenne in Paris. A

catholic priest, Marin Mersenne was the clearing house for both philosophical

and scientific correspondence among critical minds of that time. “Through

his meditation, Descartes invited Hobbes to read a manuscript copy of the

Meditations and to submit objections, which Descartes printed together with

his own replies”13. Now Hobbes was ready to render his own system, the

outlines of which he set forth in The Elements of Law. Although, he

composed this work (Human Nature and on the Body Politic) in 1640, it was

not published until 1650. He thought it wise to abandon England out of fear,

then being governed by the long parliament. He fled to France in 1640 and

tarried there for eleven years, as a Mathematics tutor to the future Charles II.

While in Paris, he began his work on a set of three related works, entitled

Element of Philosophy, the three parts of which were to deal with ‘body in

general, human nature and the social polity’ (man, the citizen and the

commonwealth). On the course of his stay in Paris, he also penned his work

in political philosophy, the Leviathan in 1651.14

12 Cf. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 12. 13 Ibid., p. 15. 14 Cf. Smith, T.V. and Marjorie Grene, From Descartes to Kant (Chicago:

University of Chicago Pres, 1954), p. 165.

xv

Around 1652, Hobbes’ return to England as James Collins expressed

it was solely

… hastened by the opposition raised among Catholics and Presbyterians abroad to some violent sections on religion in Leviathan, which was circulated in manuscript form. Early in 1652, Hobbes made his peace with the commonwealth and took up residence again in England. After the restoration, Charles II bore him no resentment and even paid him a pension, referring to Hobbes indulgently as the bear whom everyone wants to bait.15

The old man, Hobbes published the first two parts of his writings: On Body

(1655) and On Man (1658) of his trilogy. Thereafter, Hobbes spent his

intellectual power in numerous polemics. He contended against Bishop

Brainhall over human freedom and did his best to convince the learned world

(in opposition to the Mathematician, John Wallis) that he had discovered how

to square the circle and duplicate the cube.

At eighty-four, he wrote his Autobiography in Latin verse. In 1675,

he left London for Chatsworth and Hardwick. In 1679, when he learnt of his

incurable ailment, he exclaimed: “I shall be glad to find a hole to creep out of

the world”16. Then at the age of Ninety-one, Hobbes died in 1679.

1.2 BACKGROUND OF HOBBES’ POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

It is generally believed that every child is a product of his own society and

age; thus, the socio-cultural activities of every society informs his behaviour

and thought. In other words, a child’s experiences generally shape his

15 James Collins, p. 103. 16 Richard Peters, Hobbes (London: The White Friars Press Ltd., 1956), p. 43.

xvi

mentality. Thomas Hobbes is certainly not different, for in his political

thoughts, one can easily capture the period he flourished and see in them the

socio-cultural influences that informed the way he saw things in nature. For a

clear and systematic understanding of Hobbes’s political philosophy, we shall

objectively refresh our thoughts again on the period of his existence and

clearly evaluate without certain erroneous biases especially concerning social

contract, which he generally considered as the basis for the establishment of

the civil society.

Thomas Hobbes lived between the 16th and the 17th centuries, when

the whole Europe was under chaotic politics. His political background could

be characterized by tumult, insecurity and instability which eventually led to

the British civil war. The man, Hobbes, the son of a vicar of Westport was

born two months prematurely in the spring period, marked by the nearing of

Spanish Armada to the English coast. His mother’s shock at the approaching

flight was said to be the major cause of Hobbes’ early birth.17 This could be

the stand of those who suggest that “fear” is the second nature of Hobbes.

This has greatly influenced his political ambitions and doctrines as his views

could be said to have been founded on fear.18

Hobbes’ experienced a monarchical system of government where the

power of legislation solely belonged to the sovereign, the monarch. At this

17 Cf. Suguron Kang, Locke, Hobbes and The 17th Century Philosophers (New

York: Thor Publication Inc., 1966), p.7. 18 Cf. Ibid., p.8.

xvii

period, his society was under political unrest, for it was the time when the

parliament was becoming unprecedentedly bolder in its challenge and attack

on the royal power. History recorded that Cromwell’s parliamentary forces

were victorious meanwhile the monarchy failed because of the tension

between it and the parliament which resulted to the civil war. This deadly

clash in the system of government in Britain during the time of Hobbes

influenced his political ideology. No wonder he believed in the absolute

power of the monarch, to whom everybody must obey.

Furthermore, as someone who was born into, monarchical system of

government, Hobbes had a deep love for this system of governance.

Consequently, Hobbes praises two important ways of attaining power by the

sovereign – voluntarily or coercively. In this, he acknowledges that sovereign

power can be attained by natural force, like a man constrains his children to

submit to his own idea or by war, subdue his enemies at will. On the other

hand, men could agree to peacefully submit as an assembly. This will later be

called a political commonwealth or commonwealth by institution and the

former, that is, a commonwealth by acquisition.19

One may say that monarch is the only form of government that is

natural whereas others are produced by man. Political monarchy is an

offshoot of the family system of livelihood and an official relationship that is

19 Cf. Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, p. 113.

xviii

so entitled by people for peace and unity.20 In order to guard and protect the

subjects through the promulgation and enforcement of laws, and so that the

situations that culminated to the civil strife could be completely avoided,

Hobbes had to propound absolutism. This implies that absolutism is the

precondition to the kind of societal system proposed by Hobbes. This of

course remains the bedrock of peace and harmony in the proposed Hobbesian

civil society. The Hobbesian civil society as we shall see later would be ruled

or governed by the commonwealth – whose power is unchecked and

absolute, at least most of the time.

1.3 EMERGENCE OF SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

It is taken that Thomas Hobbes developed this theory in the 16th century;

however, there are other philosophers who pointed or referred implicitly to

this theory before him. These philosophers spoke about the contract as the

basis for establishment of the political system. Philosophers like Plato,

Aristotle, Hooker and even Machiavelli hinted on social contract as the

foundation for order, law, justice and government. In a nutshell, the contract

theory did not start with Thomas Hobbes, though he developed it and

popularized it through his writings. Though different philosophers wrote on

the contract theory, it does not imply that there are substantial changes in

their ideas; the substance of the contract theory still remains, that men freely

20 Cf. Leo Strauss, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes (Chicago: University of Chicago, Tress, 1936), p. 60.

xix

gave out their rights to form an organized state, as a result of agreement

entered into by men who originally had no governmental organization.21

To sum it up, this means that “the state was created by men, a product

of social contract”22. This assertion was made by Plato through Glaucon, that

the city (Polis) arose due to the failure of man in providing all his basic

needs. Thus, he needed the contributions of others. In the Republic, Plato

writes: “The men, being in want of many things gather into one settlement,

many partners and helpers to satisfy their diverse needs”23. Plato’s idea here

implies ‘contract and an agreement’, since the purpose of coming together is

to help each other so that this polis will be sustained, avoiding injustice and

embarrassment, and encouraging total and mutual respect for individual

rights. This contract binding the two parties together, whether the contract

was formally entered into or was as a result of habit or custom, as in a case

where a citizen in another country is bound, in so far as he stays there, to

respect the laws of that nation. The non-citizen must also be respected by the

nation’s laws that protect human rights.24

The social contract theories came into lime light during and after the

middle ages which involved (the governmental contract’ and ‘social

21 Cf. A . Appodorai, The Substance of Politics, (Madras: Oxford University Press,

1968), p. 19. 22 Mikhail Bakunin (1999), “The Immortality of the State” Anarchists Archive ,

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/state-im.htm (29 June, 2004).

23 Plato, The Republic, ed. A.D. Lindsay, (London: J.D. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1942), p. 47.

24 Cf.Plato, The Laws, Bk.I, 25.

xx

contract). The former refers to the mutual agreement between a government

and the people in the State, whereas the latter refers to the built institution of

a political society, a civil society or the body politic by means of a solid

agreement among the individuals. The governmental contract theory’s idea

was largely employed by the core defenders of popular liberties in the middle

ages to resist vehemently the claims of rulers to absolute dominion over their

respective subjects. Thus, Manegold, around 11th century developed the great

idea that a king could be deposed when he had violated the agreement

according to which he was chosen, that is, inability to maintain peace and

order in the state, or misuse of power on the subjects.25 People are justified to

depose any king that governs unjustly.

The two forms of social contract theory, governmental contract and

social contract (individuals) have distinctive features, which distinguishes

them. In the governmental contract, there is already in existence with its

citizens. This form cannot account for the origin of the state, society and

government. Besides, the government initiated this contract for the sake of all

– for the mutual coexistence between the two parties, the government and the

people. Above all, the basic benefit of this contract is peace in the society.26

The individual social contract unlike the governmental contract is the

origin of the government in the society for Hobbes. Social contract theorists

25 Cf. A. Appodorai, p. 20. 26 Cf. T. Gilby, Between Community and Society (New York: Basic Book

Publication Inc., 1968), p. 40.

xxi

traced the origin of this contract to man in the original state of nature, a state

of no society, a state of lawlessness, characterized by Hobbes as a state of

“war of every man against every man and life here is poor, nasty, brutish and

short”27. Man became the greatest enemy to his own species. Full of

insecurity and fear – these formed every action taken by man. Amidst this

struggle for survival in the natural state of nature, man possessed natural

freedom and reason, man sought for a way of peace, voluntarily entered into

a contract with others to come together to form a common will, a society, a

civil state with a chosen one that would promulgate and implement laws,

maintain peace and order for the parties involved.28 This social contract

theory will be discoursed at length in the subsequent chapters.

However, these two forms of contract theory have at least one thing in

common; each of them does not coerce people’s will to enter into the contract

but voluntarily entered by those involved. In other words, the contract

connotes free giving up of basic individual rights which if I hold to myself

will never promote peaceful coexistence and justice in the society. This is

clearly seen in our different communities, for example, we see that when

some men come together to form an organized group, political organization,

peer group or age grade, the constituting members do not always hold on to

27 Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, p. 83. 28 Cf. Ibid., p.83.

xxii

individual worth or rights, but rather they sacrifice them so as to ensure the

achievement of their agreed common goal.

In the thoughts of some, Richard Hooker is the first to explicitly speak

about the ‘social contract’ in his book, The Law of Ecclesiastical Polity. He

held that men in the original state of nature were subject to the laws of nature

but recognized the need to wave by all grievances, which came up in the

interaction among them. “This is done by growing into composition and

agreement among themselves, by ordaining some kind of public government

and by yielding themselves subject thereunto”29. The constitution of a civil

society therefore, rests on human consent (agreement between them), on the

assumption that there were no thoughts that one man can be lord and judge

over others.

Bertrand Russell, in his philosophical reflection sees some doctrines of

the Epicureans as a kind of social contract theory. In the History of Western

Philosophy, he writes: “justices, … consist in so acting as not to have occasion

to fear other men’s resentment – a view which leads to a doctrine of the origin

of social contract”30. Russell’s point here is for there to be an organized

peaceful society, whereby people live without fear – a free kind of life, where

there is a mutual understanding and proper undertaking so that people will not

29 Richard Hooker (2003), “Law and Ecclesiastical Polity” Online modus

philosophia http://www. he Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.htm (12 April, 2010).

30 Bertrand Russel, History of Western Philosophy (London: Routledge, 1996), p. 252.

xxiii

fear one another. In a nutshell, the Epicureans assert that justice is a product of

a collective function or responsibility of the citizens of a city.

This statement calls to mind the words of Johannes Althusius written

by Copleston:

all societies depend on contract, at least in the form of tacit agreement, and the state is one of the types of society … the government rests on agreement or contract, and the sovereign has a trust to fulfil. Though he distinguishes different kinds of societies – family, the collegium or cooperation, the local community, the province or the state – the formation of any definite community rests upon an agreement or contract whereby human beings agree to form an association or community for their common good in respect of specified purposes.31

The point here is basically that each community corresponds to a definite

human need, so that each contract is entered into for the common good, even

if it is by two people, as we see in the care of a husband and wife. One could

posit from the above that man is a social being, desires a society where peace

and order prevail. In other words, man is born with natural inclination for

mutual relation with others.

Although Hobbes was a social contract theorist, there were other

contract theorists after Hobbes, like John Locke and Rousseau. These were

his fellow Englishmen who flourished around 17th century Europe. These two

philosophers like their predecessor, believed that social contract is the origin

of an organized state, society or government.

31 Fredrick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Vol. III (London: Search Press Ltd., 1953), pp. 312-327.

xxiv

The starting point of John Locke’s political theory, just like his

predecessor, Hobbes is the state of nature, his magnus opus, Two Treatises of

Government, started as that of Hobbes, on the state of nature. Unlike Hobbes,

Locke presented the state of nature as a state of order, where all men were

equal and lived in separate units.32 In this state, everyone was aware of

certain limitations of the individual will, especially the two basic limitations

of the right to property which everyone had and the right to punishment of

offenders of natural laws, vested in each individual. This implied that some

natural laws existed according to Locke, and there was a natural reason which

operated in that environment. Everyone who consulted that natural reason

would judge correctly.33 This natural law tells everyone that “all men are

equal and independent; no one ought to harm or deny another of health and

liberty of possessions.34 Locke held that man was capable of abandoning the

natural reason because, he becomes irrational sometimes. For him, this

abandonment would lead to a state of chaos like that of Hobbes’ state; life

would become very difficult to all.

The state of nature according to John Locke had its own institutions.

The state of nature has its social and legalistic institutions and these institutions operate and give men some form of natural rights. These natural rights are

32 Cf. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Chp. IX, Sec.123. 33 Cf. Dipo Irele, Introduction to Political Philosophy (Ibadan: University

Press,1993), p.44. 34 Benjamin Rand, Modern classical philosophers (New York: The Riverside Press

Cambridge, 1936), p. 259.

xxv

rights to freedom, life and property. But the most basic is right to property because everyone has the right to acquire property. Locke argues that if anyone mixes his labour with any form of natural object, then that final product becomes his, and nobody can take it away from him35.

The major setback in this society is man’s unreasonableness; it is for

this that proper society, is formed, for the preservation of property. His social

contract could be described as a means of protecting property because the

contract is entered in order to guard individual right to own property.

Lockean social contract was not totally in line with Hobbes, in other

words, Locke did not advocate for an absolute power of the sovereign like

Hobbes, rather the contract was to be between the sovereign and citizens. The

people had the right of disobedience (civil disobedience) if their natural rights

were not well protected. Locke seemed to take this theory as a historical fact,

and not just a mere fiction or myth. However, Locke did not realize that there

is no historical foundation to support his assertion.36

In his book, Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau disagrees with

Hobbes that the state of nature was a chaotic, anarchical, strife and war.

Instead, he held that the state of nature was a state of peace, innocence37. He

did not paint the state of nature as dark as presented by Hobbes. He believed

that man in the natural state was neither moral nor immoral but a happy being

35 John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Chp. IX, Sec.131. 36Cf. John Locke, Chp. XIX, Sec.230. 37 Cf. Jean – Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract Theory, BK.. I, p.7.

xxvi

because these concepts are part of civilization. Man was not alone, in

isolation, but the type of relationship that existed here was loose.38

There was a communal ownership of property in this state of nature.

This peaceful and happy state of affairs in the state of nature was heavily

disturbed when one man declared a piece of land as his own private property.

Dipo Irele in his book, Introduction to Political Philosophy, traced this

problem from the egoistic tendency of man. According to Irele:

Egoism has a double origin – one relating to individual psychology and the other to social relationships, and both lead to a state of inequality. The individual psychology of inequality arose out of the feeling of “pride” which emerged in human communities when men successfully conquered other animals39.

They began to compare themselves with other fellows and endeavored to

excel above one another in all sorts of activities. The other side of inequality

was as a result of the increase in the productive capacity of human

communities brought about by the inventions of fire, metallurgy and

agriculture.40 These inventions led to individual wealth and private property

ownership and, Rousseau claims that the real founder of the civil society was

the man who first enclosed a piece of land declaring it to be exclusively his

own.41 This led to the setting up of rules and government as those possessing

38 Cf. J. Feinberg, Duties, Rights and Claims, Philosophical Quarterely, Vol. 3, No.

2, 1966, p. 142. 39 Cf. Dipo Irele, p.49. 40 Cf. Ibid., p.50. 41 Cf. Jean – Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract Theory, BK.. I, p.5.

xxvii

wealth could not live in security, and by force and cunning the rich prevailed

upon the poor to establish these rules to safeguard themselves.

According to Edward Younkins, Rousseau proposes that civilization

brought about social ills. In the state of nature man enjoyed freedom unlike in

Hobbes’ state where there was war of all against all because power became a

condition sine qua non, the greatest thing desired by man. However the

freedom got destroyed when civilization set in by the formation of civil

society as a result of property relations that accompanied it.42

This state of affairs could be stopped according to Rousseau, by the

notion of the general will; a social contract that allows for the state of affairs

to become properly a legitimate social order.43 This position of Rousseau is

paradoxical because he criticized this earlier in his writing, however,

eventually recommends it as a means of restoration of total freedom of man

in the civil society. The main problem is to found a form of association which

the whole common strength of the community will be enlisted for the

protection of persons and property. That is, each member, when united with

the other, renders obedience to his own will, and remains as free as he was.44

That is, what the social contract wants to achieve. The basic aim of the

42 Cf. Edward Younkins (2004), “Rousseau's "General Will" and Well-Ordered

Society” Rebirth of Reason, http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Younkins/Rousseaus_General_Will_and_Well-Ordered_Society.shtml (29 June, 2010).

43 Cf. Jean – Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract Theory, BK.. XI, P.20. 44 Cf. Locke, Hume and J.J. Rousseau, SOCIAL CONTRACT, Introduction by E.

Barker (London: OUP, 1966), p. 246.

xxviii

contract is for all to renounce their individual will, to an all encompassing

sovereign body which represents the general will. In this sense, he agrees

with Hobbes that there is need for a sovereign that represents all in all – for

the interest of both the young and old in the state.

In this chapter we have succeeded in looking at the development of

the social contract both pre and post Hobbesian social contract theory. In the

next chapter, we shall dwell on the meaning of the social contract theory as

Hobbes posited.

1.4 MEANING OF SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

In the field of politics, there are basically two major theories which explain

the origin of government. These are Divine Authority or Authority given

from God and Social Contract.45 The proponents of divine authority theory

hold that every society is created by God and the kings, leaders have been

bestowed with the honour of taking care of it and every other person is

subject to him. It is this very idea that had influenced the early civilization

which saw the king as a unique and sacred person. Even Plato for instance is

said to have presented kings as godlike persons. Plato, during his presentation

on social change, remarked that the best kind of society is the one governed

by the “godlike” kings.46 This notion is rooted on the conception that the

45 Cf. An extract from Akin Onigbinde, Philosophy and Social Sciences (Ibadan:

Frontline Books, 2000), p. 133. 46Akin Onigbinde, p. 134.

xxix

society is a product of God’s creation and not as a result of any human

gatherings or sharings.

The second theory that explains the origin of the state is the contract

theory. The idea of government is a resultant of man’s thinking ability to

remedy all kinds of problems in his life. It is this theory of government’s

origin that Hobbes adheres to; the idea of social contract. This theory is

always historically traced to Thomas Hobbes; however, this view is

contentious since some people hold that he merely popularized it and is not

the founder of the contract theory.47 In other words, in as much as some

people hold Hobbes as the founder of contract theory, some others contend

seriously against it people in all aspects of live have been known to involve

in one kind of interaction or another. One to one, family to family, to the

level of the society. Philosophers like Aristotle hold and strongly believe that

man is by nature social and must interact with people in order to survive in

the society.48

More so, men, throughout the ages, have loved and interacted with

each other, either as friends and relations or as a means of survival. But the

question is, what really brought mankind together; to live in the society and

relates to one another? For Aristotle, man is a socio-political animal who is

capable of meeting his basic needs because of his cooperation with his fellow

47 Cf. Dipo Irele, Introduction to Political Philosophy (Ibadan: Ibadan University

Press, 1998), p. 40. 48 Cf. Aristotle, Politics, Bk. II, 9.

xxx

human beings.49 However, some philosophers as well as Psychologists argue

that man is by nature solitary, that society is what has situated man to live

together. This group believes that God created the society and gave it out to

man – for it was God that brought them together as one human family.50

Among the two explanations given as the origin of government / state,

the social contract theory as an agreement entered into by individuals under a

healthy surrender to be ruled by a leader, whom out of trust, they entrust the

society has more credibility as the main origin of the state. This immediately

places obligations on every citizen to obey the laws of the state. The consent

of the citizens to obey the laws shows the kind of relationship that exists

between the state and her citizens. This interaction by way of agreement

between two people, husband and wife, families, communities and members,

schools and so on, is regarded as contract. Hobbes in the Leviathan refers to

this as the “mutual transferring of rights”51. People in their right senses

decide to give up totally their natural rights of self-preservation to a

Leviathan, who will be their representative and takes the responsibility of

promoting the welfare of every citizen, since they cannot really manage it

well on their own.

49 Cf. Dipo Irele, p.37. 50Cf . Ibid., p. 39. 51 Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, p. 87.

xxxi

CHAPTER TWO

THOMAS HOBBES’ SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

2.1 The State of Nature

In Hobbes, the state of nature was a natural human state before the

emergence of the organized structural society.52 The discussion on the state

of nature was an attempt to make a historical evaluation of man in the

original state and his relationship with others prior to the civil society. In the

words of a renowned feminist theologian, Elizabeth Johnson:

All persons are constituted by a number of essential relations, which may be called anthropological constants. These include relation of bodies as medium of human spirit, relation to other persons as the matrix in which individuality arises as the context for identity; relation to social, political and economic structures; conducting by historical time and place; the place of theory in the praxis of one’s culture as opposed to instinct alone; and orientation to hope and the pull of the future. These constants mutually condition one another, and are constitutive of the humanity of persons53.

This societal idea of man contradicts the ancient belief that God fashioned

society and thus, man was naturally a social and political animal. Hobbes

does not consider the state of nature as an organized human society; rather it

was a state of individualism. Man finds himself in all kinds of troubles, and

makes his own justice.54

52 Cf. Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, Chp. XIII, 57. 53 Cf. Elizabeth Johnson, She who, Is: The Mystery of God in feminist Theological

Discourse (New York: Crossroad, 1992), P. 31. 54 Cf.Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, Chp. XV, 68.

xxxii

However, there are two opposing views as to the cause of man’s

predicament from which an organized civil society emerges as a remedy: ‘the

equality of man, and the defect in the nature of man’. Plato and Spinoza

champion the first, whereas Augustine is a strong proponent of the second.55

For Hobbes, the problem of man was rooted in his egoistical and selfish

nature. For him, men in history were equal in the state of nature, but it was

the egoistic interest of individuals that brought envy and ill-feelings about

another.56 The equality here according to Hobbes, will be altered by Locke,

who stressed the freedom and altruistic preservation of all men’s life57,

against Hobbes who emphasized self-preservation at the expense of others.

The state of nature could be regarded as a condition in which all men

were practically equal to the other in both physical and physiological

features. That there are some physical and physiological features peculiar to

individuals does not remove the fact of this equality. Hobbes endorsed

physical inequality, which for him existed only in the application of the basic

faculties endowed to man by nature.58 It means that the inequality is simply

based on nurture rather than nature. In other words, by nature men are equal

and by nurture unequal.

It is obvious that Hobbes acknowledges that some of us are much

stronger than others, consequently affirming inequality. That Hobbes detects

55 Cf. Hughes (2004),“SquashedPhilosophers”http://www.btinternet.com/ (2nd

July, 2010). 56 Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, p.112. 57 John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Chp. II, Sec. 5. 58 Cf. Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, Chp. XIV, 64.

xxxiii

this difference in physical ability does not mean that the strong and weak

cannot achieve the same goal. For instance, “as to the strength of the body,

the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret

machination or conniving with others that are in the same danger with him”59.

We see here that what matters is not who executes the plan or which plan, but

the end. If the weak succeeds in eliminating his opponents and the strong

succeeds also in elimination his enemies, it implies that both are equal. The

major concern here is that both eliminated their enemies.

2.2 Man in the Original State of Nature

In the state of nature, man was solitary since there was no society and no

recognized or constructive association with others. Man existed and lived as

though he was the only one in the world, trying to preserve his life alone.

However, the solitary man did not exist alone since there were thousands in

the same condition as he was.60 The presence of another of his kind, with the

same ambition and inclination posed a very serious threat to his survival,

competing for limited resources endowed by nature.

Moreover, man in the state of nature was susceptible to attack from

enemies as there were no laws governing (no civil society) the actions of

men. Though Hobbes recognized a kind of law in nature, it was the law of

59 Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, p.80. 60 Cf. R. Ewin, Virtues and Rights: The Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes

(Oxford: Westview Press, Inc., 1999), P. 81.

xxxiv

self-preservation, of which everybody is a judge in his case. This according

to John Abbo, is the only inviolable law of nature, the only inalienable right

of men. There were virtually no enterprises, no real handiworks because of

the fear of being invaded by others and destroying all the laboured property.61

The fear in the state of nature crippled people’s action and their disposition to

use their natural gifts to work for their own satisfaction. He who was

successful brought enemies to himself, and he who is more successful

accumulated more enemies as well.

The natural or original condition of man in the state of nature could be

summed up as a state of “anything goes”. A state that John Abbo describes as

a state of vulnerability of man: first, the competition, which springs up from

the desire of one object by many. The cause of this competition is love for

gain. The second cause of man’s condition in the state of nature is the

“diffidence”, which prompts people to look everywhere for safety. The third

which is “glory”, leads people to seek reputation. The first uses violence to

make one the master of other men’s persons, wives, children and cattle; the

second, to defend them; and the third for trifles as a word, a smile.62 What

this implies is that man went everywhere, applied any means because of gain

so as to achieve his goal. The end justifies the means becomes man’s famous

aphorism. In other words, since power and self-preservation were utmost

desire of men, therefore any of these could be achieved by any means, even

61 Cf. John Abbo, Political Thought: Men and Ideas (Westminster: The New Press,

1960). P. 198. 62 Ibid., 200.

xxxv

through violence. The worry of this acquisition was the duty to maintain and

keep them from the enemies. Man faced the challenge of retaining what he

had procured in the state of nature.

Hobbes describes this state of competition, conflict and war as

‘solitary, nasty, brutish and short, as a state of war of every man against every

man, a place of the survival of the fittest. Life is solitary because each

individual lives and thinks for himself, it is nasty, brutish and short, in that

each individual is a potential killer and violence is the order of the day, and

life can be easily terminated any day, any moment.63 In contrast to this

Lonergan acknowledges:

That humanity is not yet finished. Thus, there is still a further dimension to being human, and there we emerge as person, meet one another in common concern for values, seek to abolish the organization of human living on the basis of competing egoisms and to replace it by an organization on the basis of man’s perseverance and intelligence, his reasonableness and his responsible exercise of freedom.64

In a nutshell, Lonergan emphasizes that egoism leads man nowhere but

rationality stands a better chance of “all living for all” (altruistic life).

63 Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, Chp. XIII, 58. 64 Bernard J. Lonergan, Method in Theology (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,

1972), p. 10.

xxxvi

2.3 Hobbes Contract Theory

In the state of nature, men possessed natural rights which enabled them to do

many things even to one another. But again, the laws of nature connote those

precepts or rules which are basically rooted on reason, “by which a man is

forbidden to do that which is destructive to his life, or taken away the means

of preserving the same, and to omit that, by which he thinks it may be best

preserved”65. For Hobbes, these are called precepts or “the maxims of

prudence” and sometimes, he said, they are constitutive and regulative

principles which form the basis of social contract after the state of nature.

Hobbes argues that they are products of good reason or discovered by it, and

this is possible through a deep reflection about the horrible condition existing

in the state of nature.66 One may not deny the effect of these percepts on

man’s actions in the state of nature before the emergence of social contract in

the form of agreement.

According to Hobbes, the precepts have no positive effects because

they are not generally agreed upon and enforced by the sovereign authority,

and to observe them would be foolish and very risky for men in the state of

nature. There was no strong desire to make them work since the state of

nature was highly anarchical.67

65 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan in English Works ed. Molesworth (Aelen: Scientia,

1963), P. 100. 66Cf. Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, Chp. XLI, 234.

67Cf. Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, Chp. XIII, 58.

xxxvii

In this way Hobbes, laid down these laws which were fundamental to

the state of nature, and believed that they were eternal and immutable.

The first is that people in the state of nature should seek peace, although, the condition in the state of nature does not allow for this. He believes that people should seek peace because it is in everybody’s interest. The second is complicated, that every man should be willing, when others are so, too, to seek peace and self-defence, not claiming his rights, and be contended with liberty which others enjoy. Lastly, that every man should obey the covenant made.68

These laws will necessarily form men to an agreement or social contract in

which each man would authorize and give up his right of governing himself,

to a man or assembly of men.

The social contract that would ensue from the state of nature is two-

fold: firstly, the people must agree among themselves, and later authorize a

person or group of persons to lead them. This leader or leaders would be

given the absolute power to rule, and would be above the social contract.69

This assertion of Hobbes is very misleading. If people could be under the

contract, what would make the sovereign authority or Leviathan to be above

the contract? Who could curb the human excesses of the Leviathan?

In the social contract one gives up his rights to hold onto the

cooperation of people, against this, we will return to the state of fear70,

68 G. Kavka, Hobbesian Moral and Political Theory (New Jersey: Princeton

University Press, 1986), p. 45. 69 Cf. Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, Chp. XIV, 61. 70 Cf. Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, Chp. XIV, 61.

xxxviii

insecurity and ‘war of everybody against everybody’ (bellum omnium contra

omnes).71

2.4 The Sovereign and Power

Hobbes social contract theory loses its importance or value without an absolute

sovereign power. His political theory drives from his views about human

nature and this made Hobbes to postulate an absolute monarch who can curb

human excesses. But the question, one can ask is whether his views about

human nature, his political theory of absolute sovereign ruler is correct. Since

men sometimes do altruistic things that are clearly not selfish it means that man

is not always motivated by selfish desire as Hobbes posits.72 On the other hand,

one cannot deny the fact that men are selfish as Hobbes clearly stated.

Hobbes strongly encouraged monarchy, which he saw as natural and

best leadership for the continuity of government. Whether a monarchy or not,

the rights and powers of the sovereign are still absolute. The sovereign needs

to be powerful and very strict in order to enforce any promises made by the

citizens. The basic aim of instituting the sovereign is for peace and unity in

the society. For Hobbes, a tyrannical ruler who can maintain peace is better

than a benevolent leader who cannot maintain peace in the state.73

71 Cf. Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, p.50. 72 Cf. Dipo Irele, Introduction to Political Philosophy, P. 43. 73 Cf. Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, Chp. XVII, 77.

xxxix

The primary duty of the sovereign then, was to guide and protect

people. To carry this on, he had unlimited and absolute power to laws. The

people were bound by these laws. The sovereign became the arbiter of what

is good and evil. The people owed nothing to any other head rather than the

sovereign in the society. In other words, no one else was empowered to

enforce laws or punish on behalf of the sovereign without direct permission

from him. Hobbes captured this in pictorial form:

They that are subjects to a monarch cannot without his leave cast off monarchy, and return to the confusion of disunited multitude; nor transfer their person from that bears it to another man, or assembly of men, for they are bound, every man to every man, to own and reputed author of all, and that he that is already shall do and judge fit to be done, so that any one dissenting, all the rest should break their covenant made to the man, which is injustice. They have also, every man given the sovereign to him that bears their person. Therefore, if they depose him, they take from him that which is his own, and again it is injustice.74

The sovereign was at liberty to carry out his functions, irrespective of the

social contract.

This whole idea of a monarch not being deposed of his authority is in

accordance with the early civilization, which saw a king as instituted by God,

as his representative. The king was seen as divine authority and could only be

deposed by God. Besides, if the king was highly corrupt, it was commonly

believed that God allowed him there for a special purpose. It was expected

74 Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, pp. 113-114.

xl

that the king should be generous, charitable and administer justice especially

to the less privileged. Whoever disobeyed or resisted authority went against

God’s order and deserved severe condemnation.

However, some philosophers argue that the sovereign is human and

therefore should not be the maker of laws and executor at the same time.75 He

could breach the general contract which deserves punishment as given to

other contractors, but who will give him punishment? This could lead to

protest against the sovereign, whom Hobbes gives absolute power of

leadership.

Given modern experiences regarding the state of power, Hobbes’

understanding of power gives opposite since power is shared among the

different tiers of government in many countries in the world, in fact his

examples are just extreme and unconvincing;

We might recall the American (U.S) constitution, where powers of legislation, execution and case-by-case judgment are separated (to Congress, President and the Judiciary respectively) and counter-balance one another. Each of these bodies is responsible for judging different questions and cases. There are often, of course, boundary disputes, as to whether legislative, executive or judicial powers, should apply to a given issue, and no one body is empowered to settle this crucial questions of judgment.76

75 Cf. S. A. Lloyd (2002), “Hobbes’ Moral and Political Philosophy” Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/ (4 Jan, 2004). 76 Ricahrd Hooker (2003), “Law and Exccleastical polity” online modus

philosophia, http://www.heinternetencyclopediaofphilosophy.htm (01 March, 2010).

xli

Division of powers is very important to any government because it balances

different groups and bodies into decision making. They help to prevent

disputes from escalating into violent conflict or civil war.

CHAPTER THREE

THE LAW OF THE STATE

In our discussion on the nature and condition of man in the state of nature,

before the emergence of civil society, we discovered that absence of law is

one of the causes of violence and chaos. Man is vulnerable to many dangers

and fears arising from his natural conditions. The worst of all problems is the

fear of sudden death. Life here is ‘do whatever you like’, decide and carry it

out. It did not work well with man in this condition. Thus, man needed a

sovereign who could discharge the functions of the arms of the government:

promulgation of law, enforcement of law and administering the law. In other

words, power and authority conferred on the sovereign make him the right

leader of all. He worked to direct and guide the actions of everybody lest

individual rights may be subjugated.

It is based on this that the present chapter is attributed to the law and its

nature. The chapter aims to investigate the effectiveness of the sovereign in

carrying out his official responsibility via establishment of law to guide his

affairs in the civil state.

xlii

3.1 What is Law?

Different people have attempted to define law holistically, approaching it

from diverse perspectives. What is actually meant by “law”? People have

made their contributions toward the exploration of the concept law. Yet there

is no generally accepted definition of law. In ordinary language, laws are

regarded as any kind of rules and regulations whereby actions are judged.

Simply law is meant to guide our actions, spur us into action and discourage

us from doing certain things. For Wilson Woodrow, every law should be

authorized by an authority; law implies that portion of the established thought

and habit which has gained distinct and formal recognition in the shape of

uniform rules backed by the authority and power of government. In this

definition the state is the power and authority behind the law. For T.H Green,

law is the system of rights and obligation which the state enforces.77 It is in

this line Erikson J, sees the law “as the command of a sovereign who is seen

as above the law, but made by him as an instrument for governing his state. It

is only obliging to the subjects who owe him allegiance and obedience”78.

For Aquinas, a law is nothing else than “a dictate of reason in the ruler by

which his subjects are governed”79. Aquinas’ conception of law does not

contradict Hobbes notion of law, which the commonwealth had commanded

by word, writing, or by sufficient sign of the will, to make use of, for the

77 Cf. A. C Bradley, “Introduction to the Idea of Moral” http://fair-use.org/t-h-green/prolegomena-to-ethics/ ( 6 July, 2010).

78 Wilson Woodrow, The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law quoted in A .Appodorai, The Substance ofPolitics, (Madras: Oxford University Press, 1968) , p. 59.

79 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I - II, q.92 a.2.

xliii

distinction of right and wrong; what is contrary and what is not contrary to

the rule.80 The sovereign is the legislator of the law which must be for the

good of the entire citizens in the state.

Here, Hobbes proposes that laws are made for the convenient

administration of justice, the preservation of people’s basic rights. J.W

Salmond defines law based on this, as the body of principles recognized and

applied by the state in the administration of justice.81 It means that those

principles are recognized by the state, aiming at making the people happy. In

the words of Aquinas, “law aimed at being obeyed and observed by its

subject to make them good. For if the proper effect of the law is fixed on true

good, which is the common good given according to Divine justice, it follows

that law simply makes men good”82. On the other hand, if the intention of the

law giver is fixed on that which is simply good, but useful or pleasurable to

himself, which is in opposition to Divine justice, then the law does not make

men good. This could happen in a state whereby a government is privatized, a

government by selfish men. In this instance, the law is corrupt; it has lost its

essence and effect, absolutely perverse. Any leader that holds onto corrupt

laws does not fulfill his obligations as the head. For Hobbes, such a leader or

ruler is tyrannical.83

80 Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, p. 173. 81 Cf. J.W Salmond, Law and Justice (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1968),

pp.41-42. 82Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I – II, Q. 90, A. 1 83 Cf. Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, Chp. XXX, III.

xliv

3.2 Overview of Natural Law

In the introduction, we saw that natural law is important to this work because

Hobbes tells us that in the state of nature each person has a right (liberty)

guided by reason to use all things and this reason makes man to do things he

deemed fit for the preservation of his life, it is this natural reason that Hobbes

regarded as natural law.84 The concept of natural law may not be meaningful

if some fundamental ideas are rejected. Such truths are to be accepted so as to

make the theory of natural law plausible. It entails that the human mind

knows the essence or nature of things from which the order of the universe

presented in the eternal law. That man recognizes in the order of the created

things. This natural law of reason helped men to think of electing a head, a

leader that would protect the general interest. However, the natural state of

man, amidst natural law is not encouraging, since men are in constant

opposition and war against each other.

In order to solve this conflictual life, Hobbes proposed a sovereign

who will apply natural law in making peace in the state of nature. Hobbes

tells us that each person possesses reason. Each man is endowed with reason

at least for self preservation. There was no leader to coordinate this human

reason for good. The state of nature is seen as a lawless state, a state of

anarchy; there are no legislative, executive and judicial powers. Each man

84 Cf, . Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, 30.

xlv

possesses his own individual administrative power in whatever means he

chooses.85 However, this ill situation, which Hobbes believes to be ruled by

the selfishness of men, is not devoid of every law and order. There is in the

state of nature what Hobbes calls “the natural law of reason”86. The natural

law of reason makes man to do that which preserves his own life. In a

nutshell, natural law is the instinct in all creatures for self-preservation. This

law of instinct is what some people regard as law of nature.

The problem with Aristotle associating the natural law with all

created things both rational and non-rational is in his idea of teleology

whereby everything tends towards its perfection.87 Thus, he considers this

natural inclination towards one’s perfection as the conformity with the

natural law. There is need for a clear distinction between law of nature and

‘natural law’. In Aristotle’s view, the law of nature could be described as that

in which every creature in the universe conforms to, for being part of the

natural law is an ordinance of reason, which is only for man, as the rational

creature.88 This means that the law of nature simply applies to all things since

it governs the activities of the whole universe, whereas ‘natural law’ is solely

a participation in the law of nature by rational being.

85Cf. Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, Chp. XIV, 60. 86 Ibid., Chp.XIV, 60. 87 Cf. Gerard Hughes, “Aristotle on Ethics” In Routledge Philosophy Guide Books,

edited by Jim Crane and Jonathan Wolff ( London: Taylor & Francise-Library press, 2003), p.37.

88 Cf. Ibid., p.37.

xlvi

Moreover, Hobbes gives us a notion of the law of nature as “a precept

or general rule found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that

which is destructive of his life, or takes away the means of preserving the

same; or to omit that by which he thinks it may be best preserved”.89 In spite of

this, Hobbes also posits the fundamental law of nature, the precepts of general

reason that every man ought to endeavour for peace as far as he can obtain it,

or apply the advantages of war. The second law of nature following from the

first is that a man be willing, when others are, for the sake of peace to lay down

his right to all things, and be contended with so much liberty against other

men, as he would allow father men against himself.90 The law of nature for

Hobbes could be seen as a law of self-preservation, and this is argued to be the

foundation of the selfish nature of man. The above definition agrees with

Aquinas’ conception of law as “an ordinance of reason applied for the common

good”91. However the end products of the two definitions differ, as Hobbes; is

for self interest whereas Aquinas’ for the interest of the whole community.

The problem of natural law is not new in philosophy for it is at least

one of the most ancient concepts in human thought that requires deep

reflection. In the pagan Greece, natural law suggested something peculiar

only to human nature unlike in the modern era that it has a Christian

undertone. Thus, the Greeks saw natural law as pertaining solely to human

89 Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, P. 84. 90 Cf. Ibid., p. 85. 91 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II q. 90, a.2.

xlvii

reason. Natural law, however is natural to man. Though it is unwritten, it is

known to all and obeyed by all men, because the precepts are immanent in

human nature. They are implanted in us and expressed through us.92 It is so

deep rooted in the men’s hearts that it can never be wholly wiped our at

anytime in all the people. This portion gives natural law a universal quality.

Natural law is universal in the sense that it is known by every

individual and everywhere. It is endowed to all men in the universe. One can

argue that natural law should be applied to all human beings since all have

the same inclinations and natural conditions in the Hobbesian state of nature.

However, mad men are exempted in that their acts are not informed in

freedom and conscious thought pattern. Children too who have not yet

developed their faculty of human reasoning are not held responsible for their

acts that are not in conformity to the natural law.93

We should note that though the natural law precepts are not written, it

is not an excuse for breaching them, since is universally known and deal with

practical knowledge. According to Aristotle, the man of practical reason

(wisdom) becomes the arbiter of what is right and wrong. In the words of

Aristotle, the man of practical wisdom is one who has constantly and

92 Cf. Maurice Le Bel, Natural Law, in Alfred L. Scalan(ed) Natural Law

Proceedings Vol. II (Indiana: University Press, 1948), p.3. 93 Cf. Gabriella Samms (2004, “Children Should not be Blamed for their Actions”

http://www.helium.com/debates/69697-should-parents-be-held-responsible-for-their-minor-childrens-criminal-behavior/side_by_side (9 July,2010).

xlviii

consistently allowed his actions to be directed and influenced by the faculty

of reason rather than the emotions, feelings and desires.94

In the discussion of Hobbes’ state of nature, we learnt that his

political theory is built on the notion of the existence of natural right. Natural

law becomes an ordinance for the preservation of these basic rights endowed

to man by nature. According to Hobbes and John Locke, the basic rights of

every man are right to life and right to property.95 This simply means that

Hobbes built his natural law theory around the natural rights, since laws are

meant to preserve the rights of the people in the society, the it is self-evidence

that natural law preserves these rights. In the civil society formed through the

free agreements of the individuals, the civil law becomes an

acknowledgement of the natural law – because one is formed from the idea of

another.

3.3 Effects of Civil Laws on the Contract Theory

Since Thomas Hobbes portrayed man in the state of nature as being

motivated by his love for self, which resulted to a state of war and anarchy, it

follows that the civil laws are needed as means of controlling emotions and

appetite. If this is not done, the new civil society may be the same with the

former society, the state of nature.

94 Cf. Gerard Hughes, “Aristotle on Ethics” In Routledge Philosophy Guide Books,

edited by Jim Crane and Jonathan Wolff ( London: Taylor & Francise-Library press, 2003), p.185.

95 Cf. Feinberg J., Social Philosophy and Human Rights (New York: Wadsworth, 1970), p. 19.

xlix

Hobbes therefore, defines civil laws “as the laws that men are bound

to observe because they are members of a commonwealth”. The civil laws are

for everybody, those rules which the Leviathan has commanded, to make us

of for the distinction of right, and wrong.96 The essence of law for Hobbes is

to maintain peace and order in a civil society. He sees the law of nature and

civil laws as containing each other and aiming at the same goal. Law in the

first place is a command and should be obeyed by the subjects. It means that

civil laws should be observed and obeyed in the civil society by the citizens.

But for the civil laws to be effective enough to protect people’s rights,

maintain peace and order in the civil society, there is need for a judicial arm

of the government to administer justice – rewarding good and punishing evil,

that is to distribute equal justice and fairness. It is based on this that we can

consider the well being of a civil state to solely rely on the enablement of the

judiciary to act according to the civil laws.

The law of a state is a means and an organ through which the

sovereign uses to protect his subjects from attacks and infringements from

fellow citizens who might want to manipulate them. Thus, civil laws give

meaning and scope to particular ways of acting in the civil state. Human

rights and freedom are protected through the civil laws of the state. In other

words, by promulgating civil laws, the sovereign guides and preserve the

people who have voluntary ceded their legislative, executive and judicial

96 Cf.Leslie Stephen, Hobbes (London: Macmillan, 1940), p. 131.

l

rights to him, with the hope that he would surely protect them. The end of

this gesture is the maintenance of peace and order by the Leviathan, which

was totally absent in the proposed Hobbesian state of nature. Individuals can

find a means of protecting themselves, if the sovereign fails to maintain peace

and order in the state. This would definitely take us back to the state of nature

a state of war of everybody against everybody.97 So, to make sure that the

aim of the covenant is achieved, the civil laws must be properly enacted and

used for the benefit of all the people. The government must be at alert and

effective in exercising or discharging her duties. Since the effect of civil law

is the administering of justice and equity among the people, to ensure peace

and order in the state, there is need to explore the rule of justice in the civil

state.

3.4 The Rule of Justice

We understood from Hobbes that there was no notion of justice in the state of

nature, there was no law to forbid people from acting in a particular way

especially in view of self-preservation. People considered their actions just,

even when they were actually unjust in the state of nature. In the artificial state,

this has to be changed, people appointed leaders who make laws for the

preservation of individuals and people collectively. It means that each person is

expected to behave in accordance to the will of the sovereign. Any deviation

97 Cf. Ewin R., Virtues and Rights; The Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes

(Oxford: West view Press, Inc., 1999), pp. 45 – 46.

li

from this becomes disobedience, injustice and deserving of punishment. Put

differently, the civil state observes a distributive justice whereby each person is

rewarded or duly punished based on merit. Thus, Hobbies defines justice as the

performance of the covenant and giving every man his own merit.98 In other

words, we agree to live together in an organized state, discharge our duties and

responsibilities – by obeying rules and precepts of the sovereign. However,

when we go against the agreed laws of the state, we should be punished. In the

Leviathan, Hobbes defines crime “as committing by deeds or words of that

which the law forbids, or the omission of what it has commanded”99. As a

result of this, we can say that without civil and natural laws, there would be no

crime or offence, and by implication, the notion of justice is gone.

Moreover, this calls to mind the dictate of the Golden rule which

states “do not to others which you think unreasonable to be done by another

to you”100. In practical life, this is not always the case, since people

sometimes act according to the inclination of self-preservation (which is the

main reason for the social contract). This is why the sovereign is generally

empowered to administer punishment to offenders or falterers. Punishment

helps to deter people from further crime and also a lesson to them that have

‘the same possibility to act in the same way’. It is important that punishment

should outweigh the gain the individual would get from going against the

98 Cf. Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, p. 174. 99 Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, p. 190. 100Ibid., p. 193.

lii

civil laws, or else people may choose to be punished, in so far as the gain is

greater.

The third law of nature is rooted in justice: It states that men should

perform their covenant, otherwise the covenant is in vain, just empty words.

To break this covenant is unjust – injustice from this means the non-

performance of covenant that is, acting contrary to the agreement made in the

state. The rule of justice simply implies equal distribution of justice-by

punishment or providing individual needs.101 Any act that compels one to

disobey the civil authority is unjust. In other words, having voluntarily agreed

to give up one’s rights for the maintenance of peace, it will be an act of

injustice for a person to breach the law. The sovereign is empowered to mete

out punishment to all the unjust in the society.

In a nutshell, what Hobbes is asserting here is that the notion of justice

and injustice emerged with the establishment of a new state of nature, ruled by

the sovereign. But there is a question: what happens to the natural rights of

man? In the state of nature, men had the natural rights to everything, and

justice was the giving of this right to whom it was due, however; there was no

notion of justice, it did not exist. Hobbes explains that absence of justice in the

original state of man, is as a result of no covenant on which the notion of

101 Cf. Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, p. 94.

liii

justice is based. The idea of justice and injustice are products of the later life of

man.102

On the other hand, Locke and Rousseau might not agree with the

above assertion since they believed that man is naturally altruistic; they

would assert that in the state of nature there was the idea of justice but not as

painted by Hobbes. Locke as we saw in the previous writing asserted that

men were free and each lived according to his own liking. This freedom is

not a license to act as one desires, since there is a natural law of reason,

which directs and guides the actions of the people.103 The main purpose of

this natural law is to ensure that nobody shall impair the life, health, freedom

or the possessions of others. So for Locke, there is justice in the state of

nature.

CHAPTER FOUR

HOBBESIAN CONTRACT THEORY AND RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE

IN NIGERIA

Nigeria is endowed with many religions and religious-minded

citizens. Apart from the original traditional religion of the people, other

religions have found their ways into the country. Some of these are

Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism and so on. The positive impact of

these religions has been widely embraced by her members. We intend to

102 Cf. Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, p.8. 103 Cf. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Chp. IX, Sec.131.

liv

explore the two major Religions in Nigeria: Christianity and Islam, and the

corresponding application of irrationality in their practices that leads to

bloody religious violence. This violence did not start today, but for the

purpose of this essay, we shall cover the period between 1991 to 2010.

4.1 SURVEY OF RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE IN NIGERIA

Islam is one of the prominent religions found in this part of the world known

as Nigeria. As a religion, it involves the belief in God known as Allah. It was

founded by prophet Muhammad with the aim to guide the believers into a

new way of life revealed to him by Allah (God). Some violent extremists

have turned this religion into “a blind faith followed religion”104. A religion

meant for peace in principle, however a pandemonium in practice.

Also in Nigeria is Christianity which came through the activities of

early missionaries. Christians are ardent followers of Christ with different

groups: Catholicism, Anglicanism and other denominations. These two

religions, Christianity and Islam always clash in their religious practices

especially in Nigeria. Every group blames the other for the religious crises, but

the question is which group is behind these crises? In the words of David

Cole,

These two Nigeria’s major religions,[sic] Islam and Christianity, are sometimes depicted as monolithic entities that confront each other in pitched battles, with formal

104 M.Y Nabofa, Principal Elements in African Traditional Religion (Ibadan: Ola –

Oga Commercial Press, 1992), p.1.

lv

implementation of the criminal aspects of the Muslim Sharia legal code (or the likelihood of implementation) providing the spark that touches off violence. Riots based (at least ostensibly) on religious affiliation and religious policies have indeed occurred, the worst such being the two confrontations that took place in Kaduna between February and May 1999.105

Even after these terrible experiences of February and May 1999, religious

violence has continued to occur in Nigeria between these two religious

groups, Christians and Muslims.

The situation in Kano is both simpler and more complex than that in other locations in northern Nigeria. Although the vast majority of the population is Muslim (perhaps as much as 90–95 %), many different Islamic sects coexist in the city. The traditional sects, all of which are followers of Sunni Islam, include the Qadriyya, the Tijaniyya, the Tariqa, the Malikiya, the Ahmadiya, and the Islamiya. Another group is the Da’awa (some use the term to designate a separate sect, some use it as a synonym for hisba—the group that enforces shari’a provisions—while still others use it to denote the preaching arm of the hisba).106

The newer and more fundamentalist sects include the Izala (a sect that

deals with educated young people) and the Shiites (a sect that believes that

only the heirs of the fourth caliph, Ali, are the legitimate successors of

Mohammed). The Izala in particular tend to attract educated young people,

both men and women.107 The Shiites and sometimes the Izala are said to

105 Cf. Raymond Cole (2005) http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/pg.122.html

(28th May, 2010). 106 (2010), “Nigeria Christian / Muslim Conflict” Global Security Articles,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/nigeria-1.htm (9 July, 2010). 107Cf. Ibid.

lvi

oppose applying sharia in Nigeria until such time as religious leaders have

taken over political leadership of the country. Just as NGOs (a non-

governmental organizations) have sprung up to take advantage of

opportunities created by Western donors’ calls for civil society partners, so

Muslim sects have arisen in response to the calls for faith-based partners

issued by Islamic governments and religious groups from Libya, Sudan, Iran,

Saudi Arabia, and other Arab countries.108

Some 11 northern states, beginning with Zamfara on October 27,

1999, and including Sokoto, Kano, and Niger, had passed into law the

criminal law sections of the Islamic Sharia code of conduct. The states

concerned adavanced advanced with varying speed toward application.

Zamfara and Katsina, for example, are now applying the code, while other

states have not.109

“Many northern politicians have supported the so-called Sharia

movement through personal conviction, political opportunism, political

realism, or a sense that they should represent the wishes of those who elected

them”110. These laws are sometimes misused to perpetuate religious crises in

Nigeria.

108 Cf. (2010) , “Nigeria Christian / Muslim Conflict” Global Security Articles,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/nigeria-1.htm (9 July, 2010). 109 Cf. Ibid. 110 Cf. Kizito Osudibia, Nigeria: The Case of Fragmentation, (Delta State: Guinea –

Chim Ind. Ltd, 2007), p.17.

lvii

The establishment of Sharia laws and courts really poses a

constitutional problem because the Nigerian constitution guarantees a secular

state, guarantees freedom of religion, and vests in states concurrent power to

establish their own court systems. At both constitutional and practical levels,

these guarantees are incompatible in the light of the fact that Islam rejects

separation of political from religious authority and proposes a unified

theocratic system of governance.111 However, Nigeria as a multi – religious

entity may find it extremely difficult to use Sharia laws to govern the whole

people and religions.

Religious crises have become a ‘sore thumb’ in the country since

independence with continuous killings. In 1991 religious tensions erupted in

April, when Shiite Muslim clashed with police in the north. This led to the

culmination of growing strains between the Shiite leader and the military

Governor of Kastina. After two days of the clash in Kastina, another fight

ensued in Bauchi State. These crises claimed at least 84 lives and extensive

damages, while about 29 peoples were injured. In October of the same year,

angry Muslims planned a successful attack on a Christian Evangelist in Kano,

and killed hundreds of people.112 Since the coming of democracy in 1999,

there have been more exacerbating religious violence.

111 Cf. (2010), “Nigeria Christian / Muslim Conflict” Global Security Articles,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/nigeria-1.htm (9 July, 2010). 112 Cf. (2008), “Muslim Riot” Church Arise,

http://churcharise.blogspot.com/2008/02/again-muslim-riot-claims-3-lives-in.html (9 July 2010).

lviii

In May 1999 violence erupted in Kaduna State over the succession of

an Emir resulting in more than 100 deaths. In Kaduna in February-May 2000

over 1,000 people died in rioting over the introduction of criminal Sharia code

in the State. Hundreds of ethnic Hausas were killed in reprisal attacks in

southeastern Nigeria. In September 2001, over 2,000 people were killed in

inter-religious riot in Jos. In October 2001, hundred were killed and thousands

displaced in communal violence that spread across the Middle-Belt states of

Benue, Taraba, and Nasarawa.113 This was not the end of the violence.

In May 2003, it is recorded that about 20,000 people were lynched and

property worth millions of naira destroyed in a clash between the Muslim

community and Christians in Kano. From 2006 – 2008 over 500 people were

killed and about 10,620 persons were displaced in religious crisis that took

place in Jos, Plateau State.114 In 2009, there were two major religious crises

which involved a bloody sect, “Boko Haram” (sometimes referred to as the

"Nigerian Taliban", the group's members are followers of a self-proclaimed

Islamic scholar, Mohammed Yusuf, who is radically opposed to Western

education and wants Sharia, Islamic law to be adopted across Nigeria) and

policemen. Consequently, some churches were burnt, pregnant women

slaughtered, catholic priests and protestant pastors have been strangled to

113 Cf. Chinua Achebe, The Crises in Nigeria (Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishers, 2003), p.36.

114 Cf. Raymond Cole(2007) http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/pg.122.html (16th April, 2010).

lix

death, many innocent children lost their lives and goods worth of millions of

naira have been damaged in Kaduna, Jos and especially in Maiduguri.115 These

crises nearly escalated to general Massacre between Igbos in the northern part

of Nigeria and northerners themselves.

The most recent religious crisis in Jos claimed more than 300 lives,

which was motivated by previous crises. According to Victor Ulasi,

This year the numbers of casualty and death toll have increased in the religious crisis between the Muslim and Christians in Jos, Plateau state, Nigeria which had led to the death of dozens of people while others injured in fresh sectarian violence leading to the imposition of a dusk-to-dawn curfew.116

The crisis blewup at the Dutse Uku area of Jos after an argument on the

rebuilding of homes destroyed in the November 2008 clashes. The violence

later spread to Nasarawa Gwom, Rikkos and Yanshanu areas of the city. In

fact, even as this essay is being written, nobody knows the time for the next

religious mayhem in this multi - religious entity, Nigeria.

For some people this crisis is a confirmation of adulterated nation.

Some people have questioned the competence of Nigeria security agencies. It

is regrettable that Nigeria appears to be helpless as some religious sects

continue to cripple the nation’s assumed unity, drive away potential foreign

investors and destroy already existing investments.

115 Cf. Ibid. 116Victor Ulasi (2008), “Religious Crises” http://www.articlesbase.com/journalism-

articles/dozens-dead-in-nigerian-religious-crisis-1745042.html#ixzz0pY9rrMAU , 31st May, 2010.

lx

However, some believe that the recurring outbreak of religious

violence in Nigeria is motivated by the corrupt politicians and then some

suggest that religious leaders also contribute to it. It is indeed a vehicle to

destabilize the people so that they will re-channel their interest to self

preservation.117 It is not sufficient for the Federal Government to set up a

commission of enquiry – which serves as an “artificial balloon” that yields no

good fruit. Instead of finding lasting solutions to the crises which divide the

country, and reduces our population, the commissions choose to verbally

condemn the crises.118 Sometimes they condemn innocent people who cannot

speak for themselves in the society.

It is the position of this thesis that the government should descend

mercilessly on religious extremists and equally punish any murderous sect

and their leaders. In other words, it is not enough to condemn the act, there is

an urgent need for thorough investigations of all the perpetuators of this crisis

and bring all to immediate justice.

4.2 Relevance of the Social Contract to Religious Violence in

Nigeria

We have discussed the original state of man, his condition in this state, and

the emergence of the contract theory as postulated by Thomas Hobbes. We

117 Cf. Victor Ulasi (2008), “Religious Crises”

http://www.articlesbase.com/journalism-articles/dozens-dead-in-nigerian-religious-crisis-1745042.html#ixzz0pY9rrMAU , (11 July, 2010).

118 Ibid.

lxi

are going to contextualize Hobbes’ social contract in the Nigerian setting. We

shall do this bearing in mind the notion of voluntary agreement by the people

to constitute one civil organized state for peace and unity. The fundamental

essence of the social contract is for peace in the human society.

Many scholars attribute the present religious crises of the two main

religions in Nigeria, Christianity and Islam, to the amalgamation of the

northern and southern protectorates. In the words of Adewale:

The Nigerian political and religious problems sprang from the carefree manner in which the British took over, administered and abandoned the government and people of Nigeria. The British did not make an effort to weld the country together and unite the heterogeneous groups of people. This led to civil war of about 30 months, ethnic tensions and continuous religious violence. These things become Nigeria’s biggest challenges.119

Why continuous religious intolerance? Since people are still living as though

in their ethnic and tribal nature, unmindful of the common good of all

Nigerians, therefore we must experience uproars in some aspects of life. This

religion itself becomes ethnocentric.

In the picture of Hobbesian contract, people voluntarily entered into

contract with each other, joined together whereas Nigerians have not been

voluntarily joined together. One could argue that the British were interested

in Nigeria’s economic value and not to unite them. Amalgamation was to

119 Adewale Ademoyega, Why We Struck: The Story of the First Nigerian Coup

(Ibadan: Evans Publishers, 1981), p. 24.

lxii

increase their economic earnings and not basically for peace and unity.120 It

was by force and under threat that some Kings and Obas placed their

kingdoms under British power. When the Europeans left Nigerian states,

every tribe lives for her survival instead of ‘one Nigeria’. The Hausas take

Islam as their own religion whereas other tribes have Christianity and others.

Interestingly, the Hausa Muslims regard Yoruba Muslims as fake (nominal

Muslims), which could be motivated by violent extremists who believe that a

true Muslim must murder a Christian.121

Furthermore, the contract theory in Hobbes was made to curtail and

check inordinate desires and irrational appetites of man in the state of nature.

But these things (inordinate desires and irrational appetites) are found among

the citizens. Why must Muslims always fight to wipe away Christians if we

are one Nigeria? This brings to mind the relevance of the social contract to

restore peace to diverse religions in Nigeria. When people freely lay down

their individual rights (religion) and wish other men what they would want

them to wish them, then peace will reign. If these two religious groups,

Christianity and Islam should understand and apply the rules of social

contract, that is, to endavour to seek peace, curb some religious excesses,

eliminate religious extremists then peace would be restored. People who

argue for combining the two religious groups do not get it, because each

120 Cf. Ibid., p.24. 121 Adewale Ademoyega, Why we Struck: The Story of the First Nigerian Coup

(Ibadan: Evans Publishers, 1981),p. 25.

lxiii

group has a distinct doctrine and founder. However, both groups co–exist

under the same umbrella Nigeria, so the social contract can still be well

applied. The Nigerian constitution serves as the law and the three tiers of

government, handling the contract in the state. If these people effectively

apply rightful judgment to anyone who fails to keep the contract, by killing or

harming the other, then Nigeria may experience a lasting peace and unity,

people act out of rational appetites and not by tribal and religious sentiments.

There will be equal respect for one another in the Nigerian society.

Critique of Hobbes’ Social Contract Theory Hobbes succeeded in positing a hypothetical theory of nature, where man’s

condition is portable. He gave a narration of the things in nature as they were

before the emergence of an organized society. Hobbes’ account virtually

covers every society in the world, its cradle and development. In other words,

he showed that every society underwent transformation before having a

systematic government. This transformation is basically from the worst

situation to a best society where peace and unity exist.

However, there has been an argument against Hobbes’ historic

account of the state of nature (natural condition of man), which he sees as

selfish and egoistic. For Hopkins, there is no historical or anthropological

lxiv

evidence to support Hobbes analysis of the state of nature.122 On the other

hand, it should be noted that Hobbes is not interested in giving historical and

anthropological account of the development of the state; he rather gives a

philosophical justification for the existence of a certain type of government –

absolute authority of the sovereign, and why it must be obeyed and

obligations of both the government and citizens. It is obvious that no matter

how corrupt a system of government is, it is better than the previous

condition of man in Hobbes’ proposed state of nature.

According to Hobbes, man is naturally endowed with reason, and this

gives him the sense of self – preservation that led to chaos in the natural state.

With the aid of the same reason, men resorted to the social contract as a

remedy necessary to restore peace in the society. The social contract as we

read from Hobbes, involves voluntary renunciation of one’s right for the

common good of all. This will not be welcomed by some political thinkers

and libertarian like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. As an ardent

proponent of Libertarianism, Patrick Henry prefers liberty to everything on

earth. “No liberty for him, no life”123. In fact, death is preferable to the

transfer of liberty and human rights just for the protection of the sovereign

and others. For him, the sovereign is a slave master dealing with the citizens.

In the thought of Jefferson, the theory of Hobbes that peace is needed at all

122 Cf. Gerard Hopkins, The Social Contract: Essays by Locke, Hume and Rousseau,

edited by Ernest Barker (London: Oxford University Press, 1962), p.70. 123 Patrick Henry (1775), “Give me Liberty or Give me Death” Liberty Online

Index, http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html (12 July, 2010).

lxv

cost is baseless because death paves ways for lasting peace and liberty. For

Jefferson, the “tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the

blood of patriots and tyrants”124. It is unfortunate that Hobbes submits to the

evils of tyranny to obtain peace for the people.

By ceding individual rights and liberties to the sovereign for his

protection, Hobbes limits individuals under the control of a group or a person.

Whether this person or group is selfish or wicked, Hobbes approves it.

However, the temperamental make-up matters a lot in this sense. For me,

Hobbes is myopic to this in proposing that the office of a sovereign must be

absolute. In this way Hobbes creates a mortal god, whom everyone owes

homage. While Hobbes insists that we should regard our governments as

having absolute authority, he reserves to subjects the liberty of disobeying

some of their government's commands.

He argues that subjects retain a right of self-defense against the sovereign power, giving them the right to disobey or resist when their lives are in danger. He also gives them seemingly broad resistance rights in cases in which their families or even their honor are at stake. These exceptions have understandably intrigued those who study Hobbes. His ascription of apparently inalienable rights—what he calls the “true liberties of

124Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787.—The

Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356.

lxvi

subjects”—seems incompatible with his defense of absolute sovereignty.125

Moreover, if the sovereign's failure to provide adequate protection to subjects

extinguishes their obligation to obey, and if it is left to each subject to judge

for herself the adequacy of that protection, it seems that people have never

really exited the fearsome state of nature.

Jean Hampton defends Hobbes’ social contract and the absolutism of

the sovereign. She says that a contractual relationship between sovereign and

subject will establish a set of higher laws directing the ruler’s actions that the

subjects have a right to interpret. But this would lead to fighting among the

subjects about how the sovereign should act. This would lead to warfare and

a return to the state of nature. Hence, Hobbes holds that if the union of the

many into one is to survive, the sovereign must be the arbiter of good and

evil, whatever is necessary for peace and to defend his subjects.126

Hobbes believed that the cause of “war of all against all”127 was due to

man’s irrational and inordinate personal desires or self-interest. It means that

every human action is motivated by the self-interest of the agent. For Hobbes

man is naturally egoistic. This was exactly the cause of conflict in the state of

nature. However, this view has been heavily contested by some philosophers

125 Garrath Williams (2008), “Hobbes’ Moral and Political Philosophy” Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/#Abs (12 July, 2010).

126 Cf. Jean Hampton, Hobbes and the Social Contract Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). p. 103.

127 Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, p.50.

lxvii

who hold that man by nature is altruistic. But man could be motivated by

sympathy and pity to help others. On the other hand, one could argue that even

when man helps others, it relieves some feelings from him, either to be happy

that others are free or to expect reward from others too.

In the context of Nigeria, we claim to be under a civil state, where laws

and authority are respected. Whereas, people still kill and destroy one another.

People under the Nigerian laws still breach them to set their neighbours ablaze

under the pretext of religion. Shall we say that the aim of the contract is

defeated? In one sense, it is, because Nigeria is a combination of different

ethnic groups under one Nigeria, but still experiencing killings as in the state of

nature. However, Hobbes’ social contract works because sometimes

individuals are afraid of punishment for going contrary to the laws. I think that

we need to apply the social contract very well for the betterment of Nigeria by

voluntary submission of our individual rights to one government. This

government must aim at restoring peace to the giant of Africa, Nigeria.

CONCLUSION

In the introduction of this essay, we noted that the aim of this writing was to

expose the analysis of Hobbesian contract theory. Hobbes taught that the

contract, which institutes the sovereign, is the only way to the attainment of

peace and security in the human society.

lxviii

We began this essay by surveying the social contract theory. A survey

of the life of Thomas Hobbes, examining his birth, studies, works and his last

days on earth was made. In doing this, we saw the need to expound Hobbes’

political background, tracing those factors that motivated his political

thought. In other words, exploring what formed his writing from the profile

of his age. Then we discussed the meaning of the social contract theory and

its origin. For some philosophers, contract theory began with Plato, Aristotle,

Hooker, and Machiavelli; some thinkers believe that Hobbes developed this

theory in the 16th century. This extended our discussion to examine the

thoughts of Hobbes’ two contemporaries: John Locke and Rousseau, on their

conception of the social contract theory. In chapter two, we simply examined

Thomas Hobbes’ social contract theory. This chapter deeply explored the

original condition of man in the state of nature, life in this condition was

nasty, solitary, brutish, poor and short. The only remedy for him was the

social contract where everyone gave his or her rights to the sovereign, for the

maintenance of peace in the society. We examined the sovereign and its

legislation of power in the civil state.

Chapter three presented the law of the state which was prompted by

Hobbes’ assertion that absence of law was one of the causes of man’s

predicament in the state of nature. We attempted definitions of law and made

an overview of natural law. Also in this chapter, we examined the effects of

civil laws on the contract theory. In the thought of Hobbes, civil laws are

lxix

meant to guide the civil society. These laws are very crucial to the contract,

since the Leviathan exercises its power based on the civil laws in the state. In

the state of nature there was no notion of justice, however, the emergence of

the new civil society brought the notion of justice to all men. This made it

necessary for us to discuss the rule of justice - how the Leviathan rewards or

punishes offenders in the state.

In order to contextualize Hobbes’ social contract theory, we examined

the relevance of Hobbes’ contract theory to religious violence in Nigeria in

the fourth chapter. We tried to explore religious crises in Nigeria between

1991 - 2010. We showed how Nigeria can solve religious conflicts by fully

application of the Hobbesian contract theory.

Lastly, having toured the basic foundation of Hobbes’ social contract,

we moved to engage it to a strict critical analysis; we carefully explored

different contributions of political thinkers for and against Hobbes’ social

contract theory. Amidst all critiques, one may not deny completely that

Hobbes’ social contract is necessary for sustenance of lasting peace and unity

in the present Nigerian society because it will encourage peaceful unity

among us.

lxx

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae, Fathers of English Dominican Province. Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press Inc., 1948

Gerard, Hughes. “Aristotle on Ethics” In Routledge Philosophy Guide

Books, edited by Jim Crane and Jonathan Wolff. London: Taylor & Francise- Library press, 2003, p.37.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, Michael Oakeshott edition. Oxford: Basil

Blackwell, 1960. ________ . The Leviathan. Edward White edition. Canada: Gutenberg Ebook,

www.scrib.com (2002). ________ . Leviathan in English Works edited by Molesworth. Aelen:

Scientia, 1963.

lxxi

Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Mcpherson edition. Cambridge: Gutenberg Ebook, www.scrib.com (2003).

Rousseau, Jean – Jacques. The Social Contract Theory, G. D. Cole edition.

Cambridge: Gutenberg Ebook, www.scrib.com (2003).

Secondary Sources Abbo, John. Political Thought: Men and Ideas. Westminster: The New

Press, 1960.

Ademoyega, Adewale. Why we Struck: The Story of the First Nigerian Coup.

Ibadan: Evans Publishers, 1981

Appodorai, A. The Substance of Politic., Madras: Oxford University Press,

1968.

Cranston, Maurice. “Thomas Hobbes” in Makers of Modern Thought, edited

by Bruce Mazlish. New York: American Heritage Publishing Co. Inc.,

1956, p.113.

Collins, James. A History of Modern European Philosophy. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1954.

Copleston, Fredrick. A History of Philosophy, Vol. III. London: Search Press

Ltd., 1953.

Chukwuorji, John. “Checks and Balances in Nigerian Political Situations” ,The Torch Magazine, 2010.

lxxii

Ewin, R. Virtues and Rights: The Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Oxford: Westview Press Inc., 1999.

Feinberg, J. Duties, Rights and Claims, Philosophical Quarterely, Vol. 3, No. 2, (February 1966), p.142.

________ . Social Philosophy and Human Rights. New York: Wadsworth,

1970. Gilby, T. Between Community and Society. New York: Basic Book

Publication Inc., 1968.

Hampton, Jean. Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, rep. 1998.

Hopkins, Gerard The Social Contract: Essays by Locke, Hume and Rousseau,

edited by Ernest Barker. London: Oxford University Press, 1962. Irele, Dipo. Introduction to Political Philosophy. Ibadan: Ibadan University

Press, 1998. Johnson, Elizabeth. She who, Is: The Mystery of God in feminist Theological

Discourse. New York: Crossroad, 1992. Kang, Suguron. Locke, Hobbes and The 17th Century Philosophers. New

York: Thor Publication Inc., 1966. Kavka, G. Hobbesian Moral and Political Theory. New Jersey: Princeton

University Press, 1986.

lxxiii

Kizito, Osudibia. Nigeria: The Case of Fragmentation. Delta State: Guinea –

Chim Ind. Ltd, 2007. Locke, Hume and J.J. Rousseau, SOCIAL CONTRACT, Introduction by E.

Barker, London: OUP, 1966. Lonergan, Bernard. Method in Theology. Toronto: University of Toronto

Press, 1972. Maier, Karl. This House Has Fallen: Nigeria in Crisis. (London: Penguin

Books, 2005), Nabofa, M. Y. Principal Elements in African Traditional Religion. Ibadan:

Ola – Oga Commercial Press, 1992. Ndiokwere, Nathaniel. Leaders and Followers. Owerri: Assumpta Press,

2003. Omotunde, Dele. “A Call for Peace” in Tell Magazine, no. 46, November 19,

2009. Onigbinde, Akin. Philosophy and Social Sciences. Ibadan: Frontline Books,

2000. Peters, Richard. Hobbes. London: The White Friars Press Ltd., 1956. Plato, The Republic (tr), A.D. Lindsay. London: J.D. Dent and Sons Ltd.,

1942.

lxxiv

________ . The Laws, Trevor Saunders edition. Britain: Hazell Watson and

Viney Ltd, 1982. Rand, Benjamin. Modern classical philosophers. New York: The Riverside

Press Cambridge, 1936. R.E., Hobart. “Thomas Hobbes”, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 3 and

4, Ed. P. Edwards, USA: The Thompson Corporation, 1972, s.v. Russell, Bertrand. History of Western Philosophy. London: Routledge, 1996. Salmond, J .W. Law and Justice, London:Lawrence and Wishart, 1968. Le Bel, Maurice. Natural Law, in Alfred L. Scalan(ed) Natural Law

Proceedings Vol. II, Indiana: University Press, 1978, s.v. Stephen, Leslie. Hobbes. London: Macmillan, 1940. Strauss, Leo. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes. Chicago: University of

Chicago, Tress, 1936. Smith, T. V. and Grene, Marjorie. From Descartes to Kant. Chicago:

University of Chicago Pres, 1954. Woodrow, Wilson. The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law quoted in A

.Appodorai, The Substance of Politics. Madras: Oxford University Press, 1968.

lxxv

Internet Materials

Bradley, A. C. (2003).“Introduction to the Idea of Moral” http://fair-

use.org/t-h-green/prolegomena-to-ethics/ ( 6 July, 2010). ________ . “Introduction to the Idea of Moral” http://fair-use.org/t-h-

green/prolegomena-to-ethics/ ( 6 July, 2010). Bakunin, Mikhail. (1999). “The Immortality of the State” Anarchists Archive

, http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/state-im.htm (29 June, 2004

Cole, Raymond. (2005). http://www.thechristianexpositr.org/pg.122.html(16

April, 2010). (2010). “Nigeria Christian/Muslim Conflict” Global Security Articles,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/nigeria-1.htm (9 July, 2010).

(2004),“SquashedPhilosophers”http://www.btinternet.com/ (2nd July, 2010). John Ahmed Abdullahi ( 2008 ).“Muslim Riot” Church Arise,

http://churcharise.blogspot.com/2008/02/again-muslim-riot-claims-3-lives-in.html (9 July 2010).

Lloyd, S. A. (2002). “Hobbes’ Moral and Political Philosophy” Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/ (4 Jan, 2004).

Samms, Gabriella. (2004). “Children Should not be Blamed for their

Actions” http://www.helium.com/debates/69697-should-parents-be-

lxxvi

held-responsible-for-their-minor-childrens-criminal-behavior/side_by_side (9 July,2010).