‘According to Hobbes, the only solution to living in a state of terror is the terror of the state’.

Post nine eleven Western society is living in a current ‘state of terror’ which, through the United States governments ‘terror of the state’ response, has led to an attrition of basic human rights. The fear of terrorism is constantly reinforced through prominent news coverage of terrorist cells, murderous attacks and prominent world leaders warnings. In accord to this, Hobbes would argue that the ‘terror of the state’ is the necessary solution to living in this state of terror - to protect us from our constant natural state of fear. Hobbes’ Leviathan monster, or the sovereign state, with the terror it both delivers and promises protection from, is much like the fear-inducing monstrous state we now live by. Conversely, the terror of the states status becomes highly problematic when under the guise of an act for greater good, a ‘state of emergency’ is put into practice, allowing for an unobstructed removal of existing legal procedures and the complete erosion of fundamental human rights. In this essay I will discuss the way contemporary Western society is strikingly similar in its manner of governing to that ideally suggested by Hobbes, and in doing so I will examine the detrimental effect on liberal individualism and the erosion of human rights this causes. This will be done by firstly examining a close reading of Hobbes’ Leviathan and drawing similarities between modern world practice and his ideal terror of the state. I will then expose the dangers in Hobbes’ ideology, proving such terror of the State is disastrous to humanitarian rights through an examination of the states use of ‘emergency powers’ allowed during the ‘terror of the state’ principle.

Whilst there are disparities between Hobbes’ absolute ideal sovereign ‘Leviathan’, whom he claims should ideally be the head of a ‘monarchy’, and the ‘democratic’ governments in charge of Western Societies today, similarities are common enough to draw solid comparisons. Hobbes says that the laws of nature for human beings require us to seek peace , something that he argues is best achieved through the establishment of contracts. What we need to uphold these contracts and consequently save us from our natural ‘state of terror’ is a common power enforced through a sovereign authority. This sovereign power should be, according to Hobbes, established by the people within the state, somewhat like the democratic system of election currently in place in Western democracies. This sovereign power is Hobbes’ Leviathan; a monster then operates through a use of fear, creating a terror of the state, through the threat of punishment and the use of fear inducing tactics to reinforce the continuation of obedience to the social contract. This in turn protects the states citizens from their ‘state of terror’. The ‘Leviathan’, an artificial person and metaphor of the state in total, would today be seen as the equivalent our governing systems whom quell our fears with terror of their own and our natural ‘state of terror’ is the terror wrought by terrorism. Hobbes’ argues that the only way to “erect such a common power” is to “conferre all their power and strength upon an assembly of men” , reducing all their wills into one will. This giving up of individual rights to govern one’s own bodies leads to the establishment of the ‘Common-wealth’. This ideally established commonwealth is then responsible for the defense of the people, such as the external forces of universally perceived terrorism today.

The safety that is provided by the monstrous state comes at a grave trade off, as the rights of individuals must be transferred to the sovereign in order for the protection offered by the terror of the state to properly come into effect. Fear is thus instigated by the commonwealth in a bid to keep societies terror under control; Hobbes argues that this use of state terror is for societies’ own protection, as it ensures peace is maintained. Whilst his ‘ideal’ is more blatantly totalitarian in its more dictatorial approach, his ideas behind sovereignty don’t have to only reside in a king but could lie in a governing body of people, as it does for us. Ultimately the fundamental principles behind the notion of the Leviathan apply soundly in the post nine/eleven ‘state of terror’ in which we exist, where our fear of the monstrous sovereign is used to keep our faith in our terrifying governing systems, thus keeping us protected from our own terror developed by the issues of terrorism. The ‘rights of the sovereign’ from ‘Common-wealth’ can then be compared to the rights of the government in contemporary Western society. Individuals as subjects owe the sovereign (government) their loyalty, they cannot be freed from their obligation and the sovereign decides what is acceptable within its own society. Furthermore, the sovereign prescribes legislative laws, has judicial power, the ability to declare war and peace with other commonwealths (or ideologies) as well as possessing the power to reward and punish, due to controlling the military. Western society governs in a supposed manner to combat the fear of the state of terror by providing society with the image of safety, however this is only possible when wilding the weapon of fear itself against the citizens which it governs. Fear ultimately is the driving force behind the government, and the Leviathan states method of protection is a double-edged sword. For the image of security, peace and protection that the government offers we must also become prey to its terror. In doing so, and as Hobbes’ says is necessary for effective governance and as has occurred blatantly in post nine/eleven contemporary politics, we give up our individual liberal rights without choice or justification to the monstrous state.

This induced fear becomes more problematic than just the ambiguity between personal and political law that infringes on individuals freedoms, as it creates a legal haze between law and life. Schmitt’s discussion of the ‘State of Emergency [or State of Exception]’ defines it as the sovereigns’ ability to transcend the rule of law in the name of what is ‘good’ . This act of terror falls into Hobbes’ ‘terror of the state’ that is required to ‘help’ citizens and is practiced by modern monstrous states, notably the United States, today. The ‘state of emergency’ enables a total suspension of legal order and allows the aversion of various legal considerations. Hobbes’ would state that, through the guise of the ‘terror of the state’, this transcending of the rule of the law is for the public’s protection from the ‘state of terror’ induced by terrorism. However Agamben uses modern political examples to criticize the power of the terror of the state. Using the United States response to the September eleven attacks as a prime example he criticizes the control the monstrous sovereign has in the ‘state of emergency’, and the way this allows for the legitimization of the states own terror through the permanent installment of martial law and emergency powers . The use of state terror through the installment of radical emergency laws install never ending supremacy in the state, shown by former US Vice President Dick Cheney’s claims that these emergency laws “may never end, at least, not in our lifetime ”

Abu Masab al-Zarqawi epitomizes the creation of the ‘state of terror’ that the monstrous sovereign must use in order save its citizens to a point where he has evolved throughout prolific media exploitation into an ideal, mythical insurgent bogeyman . Consequently the state, in order to deliver us from this mans unbridled terror(ism) inflicted upon Western society through violent impact in the media, obsessively bombed, searched for, reported on and buried him, always in the eye of the public. The United States ‘Leviathan’ administration used his notoriety after the extremely public and viral murder of English engineer Kenneth Bigley and beheading of American hostage Nick Berg to their own power . Knowing that he was the pinnacle materialization of the ‘state of terror’ through audiovisual broadcast, America knew they had to catch him in order to justify the ‘terror of the state’ they inflicted upon their own citizens. But it is the ‘terror of the state’ and its subsequent absolute control through ‘emergency’ powers that leads to such public brutality. Daniel Ross suggests that, confronted by Western forces operating its warfare machinery through remote control and the complete removal of suspected terrorists’ essential human liberties, Zarqawi and others perpetrate public decapitations as a brutal reminder of the actuality of the taking away of what it is to be human . Thus demonstrating the helplessness of the enemies of the leviathan in a vulgar, public display of violence that strikes opposite to the anonymity of the victims of the United States ‘war on terror’. Hobbes’ ideal ‘terror of the state’ used by the US then, it is suggested, despite the successful silencing of Zarqawi, has instigated a terrorist reaction from which they will need to defend all citizens through further perpetration of such terror. A never-ending downward cycle of ‘state of terror’ and ‘terror of state’ fighting against each other being created, thus gaining the state more emergency powers and allowing further encroachment on existing legal human rights.

The manner in which the existence of the terror the state can impose on civil liberties can be seen in a number of societies throughout history. Agamben compares the legal use of a ‘State of Emergency’ as used in the US today to that of the ‘Decree of the Protection of the People of the State’ in Nazi Germany that in 1933. The fundamental problem with Hobbes’ ideal Leviathan is that under the ‘state of emergency’, the use of the terror of the state is enabled under the excuse to protecting its citizens from the a state of terror, thus the governing institution is allowed to become totalitarian in its legal nature, as political adversaries and entire categories of population become eliminated. Like the Nazi legal theorists who spoke of an intentional state of emergency that was used to install the National Socialist State, the current state of emergency serves to present itself as the “dominant paradigm of government in contemporary politics ”. With the governing force ruling through the ‘savoring’ terror of the state and as a result introducing extraordinary measures under ‘state of emergency’ powers, there is the potential that these powers will lead to a legitimate, government controlled loss of the traditional distinctions between differing forms of constitution. The prominent example of such suspension of pre-existing laws in America came about through the military order issued by George Bush in November of 2001, 2 months after the September eleven attacks on the world trade centre that triggered the ‘state of emergency’ gripping America. “What is new about President Bush’s order is that it radically erases any legal status of the individual, thus producing a legally unnameable and unclassifiable being. The U.S. Patriot Act passed in October of 2001 allowed the detaining of any “‘alien’ suspected of endangering national security” . However through the devolution of democratic procedures under the state of emergency, non-citizens suspected of terrorist activity are now allocated to a unique jurisdiction, which entails “indefinite suspension” . Thus the terror of the state could then also herald the power to exclude subjects suspected of potential terrorist activity or relation whom are captured and detained under such conditions, ultimately stripping them of their legal status’ as individuals. This means that they were barred from the status of ‘Prisoners of War’ as laid out in the Geneva Conventions as well as being in legal limbo, not equivalent to any jurisdiction set down by American law. They are not prisoners nor are they accused, they are detainees whose sovereignty is isolated from the law and all forms of legal control . From 2001 until 7 July 2006, prisoners captured under such conditions were treated outside of the Geneva Conventions by the United States military, taken without legal protection into Guantanamo Bay. In the end, what this means is that through the institution of Hobbes’ ideal ‘Leviathan’, individuals as citizens must give up the constitutional rights that supposedly protect them if it be deemed necessary by the monstrous state. The terror of the state allows totalitarian governing in a Western democracy and through the use of the consequent emergency powers enabled to defend its citizens from the state of terror; its own citizens in turn lose individual liberties.
In conclusion the terror of the state, whether or not it defends the majority of its citizens from the state of terror and the supposed imminent threat of terrorism, uses hysteria to control the masses and in doing so can blatantly take away individual’s human sovereign rights at any time, resulting in a gross stripping of what should be essential human rights. Hobbes’ Leviathan and Schmitt’s idea of the position that the sovereign holds over its citizens advocates a system in which human mistreatment is justified and as a result can not be seen as the ultimate solution to dealing with the state of terror. Thus, whilst the terror of the state is partly a viable solution to the current ‘state of terror’ as it effectively quells anxiety through an instilling of its own fears, it is a solution that focuses on a political world where order is not possible without fear. More importantly, it is a solution that comes at the grave cost of human being’s legal status and has full potential to legally strip individuals of their most basic human rights.

Bibliography:

Agamben, Giorgio ‘The State of Emergency’ (lecture Centre Roland-Barthes University Paris VII, Denis-Diderot). Accessed from http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpagambenschmitt.htm.
Gambian, Giorgio. ‘The Ban and the Wolf’. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Translated by D. Heller-Roazen. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. 1998.
Burke, Jason and Carroll, Rory, ‘The Poor Bedouin who became a Butcher’. The Guardian. 9 June 2009.
Bush, George W. ‘Military Order No.1 Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain non-citizens in the War against Terrorism’, November 13 2001.
Cheney, Dick. Vice President, speech, October 21, 2001.
Derrida, Jacques. The Beast and the Sovereign Vol 1, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 2009.
Hobbes, Thomas. ‘Chapter 17: Commonwealth’ Leviathan. Macpherson, CB (Ed) Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1968.
Ross, Daniel, ‘Zarqawi: Taking Care of Business’. Arena Magazine. August-September 2006.
Schmitt, Carl. ‘Political Theology’, Four Chapters Sovereignty. Trans George Schwab, Cambridge, MIT Press. 1985.

Bibliography: Agamben, Giorgio ‘The State of Emergency’ (lecture Centre Roland-Barthes University Paris VII, Denis-Diderot). Accessed from http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpagambenschmitt.htm. Gambian, Giorgio. ‘The Ban and the Wolf’. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Translated by D. Heller-Roazen. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. 1998. Burke, Jason and Carroll, Rory, ‘The Poor Bedouin who became a Butcher’. The Guardian. 9 June 2009. Bush, George W. ‘Military Order No.1 Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain non-citizens in the War against Terrorism’, November 13 2001. Cheney, Dick. Vice President, speech, October 21, 2001. Derrida, Jacques. The Beast and the Sovereign Vol 1, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 2009. Hobbes, Thomas. ‘Chapter 17: Commonwealth’ Leviathan. Macpherson, CB (Ed) Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1968. Ross, Daniel, ‘Zarqawi: Taking Care of Business’. Arena Magazine. August-September 2006. Schmitt, Carl. ‘Political Theology’, Four Chapters Sovereignty. Trans George Schwab, Cambridge, MIT Press. 1985.