Sovereignty Between Security and the General Will: A Comparative Study of the Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau with Application to the Lebanese

Abstract

This study examines the problem of sovereignty between security and the general will through a comparative analysis of the political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, with a particular application to the Lebanese case. The research explores the extent to which the state can achieve a balance between the requirements of security and stability on the one hand, and the principles of popular legitimacy and the general will on the other.

On the theoretical level, the study analyzes Hobbes’s conception of sovereignty as an absolute authority whose legitimacy derives from its capacity to protect society from chaos and the state of war, making a strong state a necessary condition for security and order. In contrast, the research examines Rousseau’s conception of sovereignty based on the general will and popular sovereignty, whereby political authority derives its legitimacy from the people, political participation, and citizenship.

On the practical level, the study investigates the crisis of sovereignty in Lebanon through an analysis of political sectarianism, the weakness of central authority, the multiplicity of power centers, foreign interventions, and economic collapse. The research demonstrates that the Lebanese sectarian system has hindered the emergence of a unified national general will, while simultaneously weakening state institutions and reducing the state’s capacity to monopolize political and security decision-making.

The study concludes that Lebanon suffers from a condition of “incomplete sovereignty,” in which neither Hobbesian absolute sovereignty nor Rousseauian popular sovereignty is fully realized, due to the absence of balance between a capable state and a legitimate state. It further argues that rebuilding Lebanese sovereignty requires the establishment of a civil state founded upon citizenship, the rule of law, and strong institutions capable of reconciling security, freedom, and political legitimacy.