Thomas Hobbes: 'The obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them.'

The obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them.

In his famous work Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes laid out his political philosophy and provided us with a thought-provoking quote: "The obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them." This quote, in straightforward terms, means that the duty of the subjects towards their ruler exists only as long as the ruler has the capability to safeguard their well-being. It emphasizes the idea that the relationship between a sovereign and his subjects is based on a mutual exchange - the subjects pledge their obedience and loyalty in return for protection and security.At first glance, this quote may appear quite logical and self-evident. Why would subjects continue to recognize the authority of a sovereign who is no longer able to fulfill his fundamental role of safeguarding them? However, when diving deeper into its implications, an unexpected philosophical concept arises - the fragility of power.Power, as Hobbes suggests, is the backbone of sovereignty. As long as the sovereign possesses the means to protect his subjects, their allegiance and duty endure. But what happens when a ruler's power wanes? Does this mean his subjects are released from their obligation? The quote introduces an intriguing dilemma - the dynamic nature of power in the context of governance and its effects on the social contract.To further explore this concept, one can analyze historical examples where rulers lost their capacity to protect their subjects. In times of political turbulence or foreign invasions, one can observe how the loyalty and trust of the people often dissipate. This loss of power erodes the subjects' belief in their ruler's ability to safeguard their interests, ultimately challenging the legitimacy of the sovereign's rule.Contrasting this idea of power's transient nature, one can also argue that the quote implicitly raises the question of the citizens' responsibility. If the subjects' duty is contingent on the ruler's ability to protect them, it highlights the importance of staying informed and engaged in the political sphere. Citizens must actively assess their ruler's power and competency, hold them accountable, and actively participate in the governance of their state to ensure its continued stability.Moreover, the philosophical concept of power's temporality aligns with broader discussions on the nature of authority and government. Hobbes, in his work, emphasizes the necessity of a strong sovereign to maintain order and prevent the chaos of the state of nature. Yet, he also acknowledges the potential dangers of absolute power and the need for a social contract to establish limits on the ruler's authority. The quote provides a nuanced perspective on power dynamics, reminding us that sovereignty is neither absolute nor perpetual, but rather a conditional agreement.In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes' quote regarding the obligation of subjects to the sovereign underscores the reliance of the subjects on their ruler's ability to protect them. However, it also opens a philosophical discourse on the transience of power and the reciprocal responsibilities of citizens. The concept of power's fragility and its impact on the social contract challenges us to reflect on the significance of governance, the role of citizens, and the intricate balance between authority and responsibility. Ultimately, the quote serves as a reminder that power is not a stagnant force but a dynamic construct that deserves our thoughtful contemplation.