The power of Sovereignty

0 Comment

Inequalities in the exercise of power and disregard to justice are even more evidenced in the political scene in various regions around the world today. Such always stem from the need to advance once own course by ignoring and disregarding other people who they consider rather inadequate. Stigall, Blacksley and Jenks argue that an interesting scene is always created where people especially the government authorities always insist on maintaining their rights while at the same time violating and stepping on the rights of their own subjects. (Stigall, Blacksley and Jenks, 2009). This is a common occurrence experienced with most of the sovereignties around the globe today. The aspect of exercising single handed rule on the subject population is mostly experienced in dictatorial countries such as Syria, Egypt, Iraq, alongside other Arab countries famous for dictatorial cases. This is contrary to what Hobbes refers to in his social contract theory, leaving the state of nature and looking at the advancement of one’s own course at the expense of the others in the territory (subjects). According to the social contract theory, it is those in higher social ranks who seem to deserve their rights while those of the lower social ranking are often considered incapable of demanding for any form of rights. As a result of this, their rights are always abused in a bid to preserve those of the power in the society. This paper will look at the effects of electing a sovereign with regard to the protection of state rights and the protection of the people under this rule with reference to the Arab countries and democracy in these regions. Hobbes proposes in his theory that the election of a sovereign in any state always results in the creation of the state of nature in the regions under the control of the sovereign (Saul, 2008). This theory, I think does not hold enough water in as much as I know and believe given the many atrocities which have been experienced in many of the Arab countries such as Syria and Egypt in the recent past. Having the sovereigns in these states has done nothing much other than inflicting a lot of troubles and augmenting the rise in cases of inequalities in these states. These happen as the sovereigns strive to uphold their own rights at the expense of the other citizens. Many people have succumbed to death in these countries as they try to protest to regain their rights. The question in this case therefore is whether this is what Hobbes refers to as the creation of a state of nature. The state of nature according to my understanding with regard to the social and political contexts is when the ruling authority strikes a balance with the citizens under her rule to allow the participation and full regard of the subjects in state affairs. It is far from having the central government designing and deciding on every aspect of leadership. The contrary is however the truth in most of the sovereign ruling systems as in the cases of Syria and Egypt we have mentioned above. Brown and Hamzawy note that The tragic developments in Lebanon and Palestine- all with weak or failed state institutions- have enable Arab democracy pessimists dismiss easily any talk about positive political reforms as the fantasy of the western well- intentioned humanists- or misguided ideologues- who do not understand the real