John Locke vs. Thomas Hobbes: Analyzing the Syrian Uprising

Sunday, May 27, 2012



Thomas Hobbes vs. John Locke



There has been much unrest in Northern Africa and the Mediterranean over the past two years, popularly known as the Arab Spring. Gaining its roots from the nation of Tunisia, the call for change has rippled through a great portion of the Arab world such as Egypt, Libya and Syria and further afield in Yemen, Bahrain and Oman.


The ongoing Syrian unrest was sparked on March 15, 2011, in Da’ara when a group of young boys put up anti-government graffiti and were imprisoned without the knowledge of their parents (New York Times-Syria Times). At a time when concurrent regional protests around Syria were occurring, groups of protesters who were against the imprisonment of the boys rose up to demonstrate. The army was called in to quell the resistance, resulting in a few deaths. Bashar Al-Assad, the President, sent his troops to Da’ara to restore order and emissaries offered his condolences to families of the victims. The apology was more or less disregarded, and the movement began to spread across the country to bring down the Al-Assad regime. The security forces moved throughout the country to stop the protests, and they opened fire on innocent civilians. Unfortunately, by the time Al-Assad acted upon the resistance, the number of protestors had reached the thousands and violence was escalating.

President Bashar Al-Assad

To date, over 12,000 people have been killed, hundreds have been imprisoned in inhumane conditions, and tens of thousands have fled to nearby Lebanon and Jordan (Huffington Post). It’s in unsettled conditions such as these that the teachings of great philosophers are called on to offer an explanation and divine a way forward.


Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) are two of history’s most prominent philosophers who have pertinent theories regarding legitimacy, authority and power. At its core, the Syrian uprising is a revolt against the Al-Assad clan that has ruled the country since 1979.


Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan in 1651, where he stated that “humans [are] organisms in motion and that they need to be restrained by authority from pursuing selfish ends.” He argues that people can never rest; they will never be satisfied with what they have because they will always crave more. A philosophical opposite, John Locke, believed in a social contract between the people and the government. In Two Treatises of Government (1690), Locke’s belief in liberalism and equality led him to assess the limits of power and authority. He believed human nature was characterized by “tolerance and reason” and individuals can avail of freedom at its best when they balance these two principles. The government’s power can be questioned and challenged to ensure that the social contract is not broken between the government and its citizens. In the social contract, people “lend” their power to the government and they can take it back whenever they find it necessary. Locke also states that people have the right to stage a revolution, and since humans are social beings, they are capable of solving their conflicts civilly.


The current revolution in Syria can be analyzed using either a Hobbesian or Lockean lens. Power is a key element that keeps citizens under control. For the last 40 years, the Ba’ath party has been in power in Syria. Initially, Hafez Al-Assad was the leader of the party, but after his passing, his son Bashar Al-Assad inherited the position. When the protests started, the government responded by appealing to the families of the victims, with an attempt at reform. When he saw an increase in the number of protests, Al- Assad fired two governors and ‘sacked’ his cabinet. Shortly after, he announced that he would grant nationality to 200,000 stateless Kurds, hoping that it would calm down the protesters. However, the Kurdish people claimed that the reforms did not go far enough. Citizens complained that he had still not lifted the 48-year-old emergency law robs the Syrian people of most basic freedoms, released political prisoners or allowed opposition political parties. After the pressure increased from the citizens, President Bashar lifted the emergency law in April 2011.


There is a “continual progress of the desire from one object to another,” all in an effort to attain felicity (Hobbes). No matter how many minor reforms have been introduced by Al-Assad, repressed Syrians are not satisfied because they expect more from their government. Al-Assad has attempted to use his power to create new reforms which would bring upon peace within Syria. There is always going to be a “hidden desire” (Hobbes) to gain as much as possible. In this case, the citizens wanted the Al-Assad regime to lift the emergency law, among other demands. The government initially had the legitimacy to intervene in the violence and put an end to the bloodshed, but as the unrest has spread and taken on sectarian overtones, the regime’s authority is in doubt. This is a typically Hobbesian dilemma. Without a government, Hobbes claimed that “the life of [a] man [will be] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” However, it is also human nature to want more and “all of mankind [has] a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that cease only in death.” (Hobbes).


On one side of the Syrian conflict is the Bashar regime which wants to maintain peace by suppressing the rebellion and offering small concessions to stay in power. On the other side are Syrians who want the government to give in to their demands for regime change, democratic reforms, expanded civil rights, recognition of Kurdish rights and more (Huffington Post). Although the government or Leviathan clamped down on the population from the very start with an ‘iron fist’, the revolution has spread and became uncontrollable. In a Hobbesian world, the power of a dubious regime is pitted against the popular will of the people.


Locke, on the other hand, offers a more sympathetic and reasonable application to the plight of the Syrians. The revolution in Syria supports Locke’s idea that people have the right to a revolution. When the government refuses to acknowledge the needs of the citizens and their common needs, the citizens “have a right to resume their original liberty” (Locke). Through the act of revolution, the violation of “the social contract between the people and the government” (Locke) becomes apparent. Since the power of the government can be questioned and challenged, the citizens have the right to overthrow the government.
Also, when one totalitarian leader passes on the baton to an equally unaccountable son, the idea that citizens are temporarily lending their power to the ‘ruler’ to protect their “liberty”, “rights”, and “property” (Locke) is breached. In regards to the Syrian revolution, the government was unable to defend the basic human right to “life and liberty,” therefore automatically giving the Syrian population the right to revolt. Initially, the citizens chose a peaceful way to approach the government, in regards to the torture of the boys, as a show of peaceful protest. After the security forces engaged in violence with the population, citizens felt that the “social contract” (Locke) was broken and they reciprocated with violence. Since people did not give “consent” (Locke) to having a tyrannical government, they set out to replace it with a government that satisfies and listens to their needs.


The ongoing Syrian uprising is a victory for the Lockean world view because it better explains the break down in the contract between the rulers and the ruled. Since the social contract between the government and the people was breached, according to Locke, the people have the right to a revolution. Impatient citizens were appealing to the government about their freedom, but when offered a combination of fig leaf reforms and a mailed fist, their struggle morphed into a full-fledged Arab Spring-type revolution. The government’s power and authority was questioned when protesters encountered violence from the security forces. The Syrians believe that if the Al-Assad regime can’t provide them with protection from the security forces, they will take the power away from him and give it to someone else. The demands and actions of these citizens are better explained by Locke’s theory over the Hobbesian belief that an unquestioned sovereign is the very condition of an ordered and lawful state (Harper’s Magazine).