Empire, the Soviet Union and the USA to overcome. As far as political science
is concerned, Hitler poses two enormous questions. Firstly, how does a
movement like his take over a major civilized nation, and secondly, how can
one describe thetotalitarianismhe represented, or even begin to make such
a political system comprehensible, inside the usual terms of the social sciences?
There are no totally satisfactory accounts of Hitler or his impact, but inevitably
parallels are drawn between him andStalinand with later dictators such as Idi
Amin of Uganda, Saddam Hussein of Iraq or Pol Pot of Cambodia as examples
of huge and evilly-used political power. There seems to be an inexplicable
tendency for single individuals to wield enormous and catastrophic power at
odd times in history, and this (witness, for example, the Roman Emperor
Caligula) is not a recent phenomenon. The nearest to an explanation to be
offered involves the idea ofcharisma, but much more mundane considera-
tions, such as control over well disciplined and ruthless security forces and the
cunning exploitation of tribal or ethnic hatreds, are equally important. At the
beginning of the 21st century there appears to be no diminution in public
fascination with Hitler and his regime, with new studies often winning large
sales, appearing almost monthly.
Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) is perhaps the most important English political
theorist. Potential rivals for such a title, such as JohnLocke, have rough
counterparts in other theoretical traditions, but Hobbes may be unique. He
wrote during the time of the Commonwealth and the Restoration, and his
whole political theory is deeply influenced by the English Civil War. His most
famous book,Leviathan, tries to present a blueprint for a social system which
would be stable and minimize the dangers of anarchy and lawlessness, which
Hobbes thought threatened all societies. He is one of the earliest users of the
social contractapproach, and its associated concept of thestate of nature.
His thought is very complicated, and can only be summarized at great risk of
misleading, but the central point is a very deep distrust of human nature, which
he held to be fixed and unchangeable. To Hobbes all men, left to themselves,
were predatory, greedy, cruel and frightened of others. Thus he argues that
only the toughest and most draconian of states, with supreme power (held in
this model by a sovereign), can possibly hold them under control and allow the
development of civilized life. Above all he is concerned to remove all sources of
competing politicalauthorityin the state. There are no rules governing what
the sovereign can do to a citizen, because to have such rules would imply some
qualification to the absolute duty to obey. If such a limitation existed, there
would be a problem in defining who would make judgments on alleged
infringements. If it were a court, that would set up a rival authority. Similarly
Hobbes