Teorija društvenog ugovora Tomasa Hobsa i Žanžaka Rusoa - ujedinjeni ili suprotstavljeni?

Abstract

Tomas Hobs i Žan-Žak Ruso spadaju među najznačajnije novovekovne političke filozofe, koji svoje teorije zasnivaju na ideji društvenog ugovora. Oba autora polaze od prirodne jednakosti svih ljudi i nesigurnosti prirodnog stanja, ali na prvi pogled završavaju u sasvim drugačijim perspektivama o suverenitetu i odnosima unutar političkog društva. Ruso insistira na zajedničkom suverenitetu svih građana, koji imaju zagarantovan ekonomski minimum, neotuđivo ovlašćenje donošenja zakona i brige o opštoj volji, pri čemu svi zajedno istovremeno konstituišu i one nad kojima se vlada. Hobs, sa druge strane, nalaže da narod bira suverena koji se nalazi uvek u prirodnom stanju i mora da ima veliku moć kako bi mogao da ispuni svoju ulogu zaštitnika. Ipak, u radu se iznose argumenti u prilog tome da njihove pozicije zapravo nisu toliko različite, imajući na umu Rusoovu izvršnu vlast i mudre zakonotvorce, a kod Hobsa široko postavljena prava podanika. Teza rada jeste da kod obojice narod autorizuje i nadzire, a neko drugi vlada.

Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are among the most important modern political philosophers, who base their theories on the idea of social contract. Both authors start from the natural equality of all people and the uncertainty of the natural state, but at first glance they end up with completely different perspectives on sovereignty and relations within a political society. Rousseau insists on the common sovereignty of all citizens, who have a guaranteed economic minimum and the inalienable authority to enact laws and care for the general will, by which they all together simultaneously constitute those who are governed. Hobbes, on the other hand, dictates that the people elect a sovereign who is always in their natural state and must have great power in order to fulfil their role as protector. Yet, the paper argues that their positions are not really that different, bearing in mind Rousseau's executive power and wise legislators, and Hobbes' strong rights of subjects. The thesis of the paper is that in both of them the people authorize and supervise, and someone else rules.