What are the Cornerstones of the Transition to the Modern State? Chapter 2

Jean Bodin:

Bodin, on the other hand, begins by investigating the origin of the state. He defines the state as "the rule of many families and the things common to these families by the sovereign power in accordance with the law". According to this definition, Bodin sees the family as the origin of the state and identifies the paternal authority in the family with the sovereign authority in the state. Although he based the state on the use of force, he emphasized that it cannot be considered as the rule of tyrants. The characteristic of the state that makes it so is that its administration is based on righteousness, justice and common interest. In other words, what distinguishes it from tyranny is that it is legitimate and just. Bodin did not include God in the formation of the state at all, placing it on secular and legal foundations. It was Jean Bodin who conceptualized the modern sovereignty and laid down its qualities. Bodin was the first thinker to define the concept of sovereignty and systematize it into a theory. In his work "Six Books on the State" published in 1576, Bodin defined sovereignty as "the supreme, absolute and permanent power over citizens". In his work, Bodin characterized sovereignty as absolute, unlimited, continuous, single, indivisible and inalienable.

Bodin looks at the concept of sovereignty from a legal perspective. According to him, sovereignty is the essential condition for the existence of the state, the essential substance of the state. Sovereignty is a concept that belongs to the modern state. Because the most competent form of political organization, which we call the modern state, owes its existence in legal terms to its sovereignty. The main factor that makes the modern state different from previous political organizations is its sovereignty.

The first characteristic of sovereignty is that it is absolute. Sovereignty is the highest power of command and rule. It cannot be limited by any other power and is therefore absolute. Its being absolute means that it is above everything. The absolute nature of sovereignty is most clearly seen in its relation to the law. The absoluteness of sovereignty lies in the fact that the sovereign power can enact laws without seeking the consent of the people living in the country. The absoluteness of sovereignty includes not only the making of laws but also their modification and destruction. The laws that the sovereign makes, changes and destroys are reflections of his absolute sovereignty. 

The sovereign does not have to seek the approval of another power, for example, a senate, a popular assembly or any other body, when making laws. The person who has to obtain their approval is no longer sovereign. Moreover, the fact that the sovereign is absolute does not mean that he is arbitrary. For the will in question is not the personal will of the sovereign, but the will of the state, which looks after the common interests of all. Therefore, it is inconceivable that it should be outside the limits of righteousness (justice). The second characteristic of sovereignty is its permanence. The most important innovation brought to the modern theory of sovereignty by Bodin was "permanence". According to the thinker, a power that is limited in time or that can be revoked at any time is not sovereignty; it is only authority. Therefore, the one who exercises this authority is not really a sovereign, but only a ruler.  Another important characteristic of sovereignty is that it is indivisible and inalienable. Sovereignty is the supreme, absolute and permanent power in a state. For sovereignty to be absolute, indivisible and permanent, it must be one. Although Bodin states that the sovereign represents sovereignty, he does not entrust this power to him. Sovereignty constitutes the limits of the sovereign. The sovereign cannot transfer this superior power to another person or institution. This inalienability also means that it cannot be divided. In other words, sovereignty cannot be divided into parts. There cannot be more than one sovereign in a state. 

Jean Bodin is the representative of the modern state understanding after Machiavelli. The conceptualization of the element of sovereignty put forward by Machiavelli was made by Jean Bodin. His greatest contribution to modern state theory is his introduction of the principle of the continuity of the state. In this context, Bodin referred to the phenomenon of sovereignty, not the sovereign, for the continuity of political power in the state. While the sovereign is mortal; sovereignty is immortal. This is an important stage in the institutionalization of the modern state, its search for legitimacy and its reliance on a sustainable social consent.

Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes, in formulating his political theory, first of all started from the state of nature. He presented the state of nature as a state of chaos and insecurity in which every human being is at war with every other human being. The emergence of the state was possible when people created the social contract in order to get rid of this state of war. People's search for peace and security necessitated the emergence of the state.

Thomas Hobbes made an assumption while explaining the emergence of the state. With this assumption, which he called the state of nature, he revealed how people would live in an order without a state. Based on this assumption, he concluded the absolute necessity of the state. In order to show the necessity of a social political order organized around a central sovereign power, Hobbes designed an environment of human crowds without a state and called it the state of nature.  According to Hobbes, nature created people equal in terms of their physical and mental abilities. Even if there are differences in physical and mental strength between people, this is not so important. Because weaker people have the ability to kill stronger people by trickery or by uniting with other people in the same situation. In this respect, there is equality between people in the state of nature.  People who are equal in the state of nature will have similar desires and ambitions (because of equality). Therefore, people who want to have the same thing will be enemies because they cannot have it together. Each of the people who want the same thing will try to eliminate or dominate the other. All people will first want to protect and maintain their own existence, and then they will want to get what they like. Therefore, the person who gets a good thing will always be confronted by other people who want to get what he has. However, these aggressors will be able to keep what they have until another person or people appear to overcome them. 

The pursuit of the same things by people with the same desires and passions will make them enemies. Each person will see the other as a dangerous rival and an obstacle to be overcome. In the state of nature, where there is no force that can frighten people and prevent them from doing certain actions, "everyone is in a struggle with everyone else". Natural life is, in essence, a period of war. Moreover, this war is not a temporary state. In the natural order, war is continuous. In the natural order, where such a war prevails, "man is the wolf of man." There are three reasons for the struggle between people in the natural order. These are "competition", "insecurity" and "the desire to be superior to everyone else". These emotions constantly push people to fight each other. Competition drives people to fight for their interests. Insecurity drives people to war to ensure security. The desire to protect their fame and reputation and to prove that they are unrivaled makes people aggressive. People in competition compete to possess things that belong to others. Once they have them, they fight to protect them. The desire to prove their superiority perpetuates this state of war.  In such an environment of war, there is no security. There is no industry and agricultural activities. Commercial activities are not safe. Art and literature do not develop. There is no progress in science and technology. Worst of all, there is a constant fear of death. Human life is lonely, poor, dirty and short. In the natural world, where everyone is at war with everyone else, there is no justice. Where there is no permanent power to establish law, there can be no justice. In this respect, concepts such as right and wrong, right and wrong have no meaning in the natural order. There is also no property in the state of nature. People own the things they possess until someone stronger than them confiscates them. 

This is how the natural world presents people with such a bad life. However, it is imperative that people get out of this situation. Otherwise he is in danger of extinction. Man's reason and passions lead him towards peace. First and foremost, the "fear of death", "the desire to have what is necessary for a comfortable life" and "reason" tell people that in order to live; they need to get along with other people. According to Hobbes, it is unthinkable that the state of nature, in which no one is secure in life and property, should continue indefinitely. People who want to get rid of the insecurity and evils of the state of nature must enter into a contract. People's reason and passions lead them to make peace (contract). As a result, people come together and establish the contract. Hobbes has also determined the laws within this contract as a single principle. According to Hobbes, all the laws within the contract are in fact founded on the principle of "do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself". In order for this contract to be of value, the parties signing the contract must abide by its provisions. However, humans are egoistic beings with ambitions and desires. They may prefer their own interests to peace and tranquility. In this case, whether or not people abide by the contract is entirely up to their conscience. Therefore, a third party is needed to punish those who do not abide by the contract. Without this third party, the contract is meaningless. According to Hobbes, without the force of the sword (the state), covenants are mere promises and do not provide people with security. Therefore, a sovereign power (superior authority) is needed to ensure that the parties abide by the contract. The name of this sovereign force is the state. 

With the Social Contract, political society is established when everyone renounces their absolute rights and powers in favor of a superior authority. The will of the person or assembly in whose favor the renunciation is made replaces the will of the people who made the contract and represents them. The people who make the contract will accept the actions and transactions of this person or assembly as their own actions and transactions. The goal of this contract is to ensure that people live in security and peace. Hobbes is the last of the three great thinkers who defended the modern understanding of the state on the basis of secular and absolute sovereignty. Before Hobbes; Machiavelli and Bodin also defended the secularism and absolutism of the state. However; the understanding of secular-absolute state reached perfection with Hobbes. Unlike the other two thinkers, Hobbes succeeded in presenting the understanding of secular-absolute state within a philosophical system.

Hobbes' greatest contribution to the modern understanding of the state is that he based the origin of the state on the social contract. With the social contract, society instead of God emerged as the source of legitimacy. Thus, the source of sovereignty descended from the sky to the earth. In other words, the source of sovereignty became secularized/ secularized. Thus, the secular political power/state fiction that started with Machiavelli gained a theoretical basis thanks to the social contract. 

In tomorrow's article, I will discuss the modern understanding of the state based on the views of the three thinkers who explained the formation of the theoretical and practical pillars of the democratic state.