In Leviathan, the 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that in the absence of a sovereign authority, human beings live in a “state of nature” characterized by fear, insecurity, and constant conflict. Without a central power to impose order, each individual acts in their own interest, often threatening others in the process.
The solution, Hobbes proposed,
was the creation of an all-powerful sovereign that an entity entrusted with
absolute authority to maintain peace and stability. In modern political terms,
this sovereign is the state itself.
As Malaysia navigates a complex
era under the leadership of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, Hobbes’s insights
offer a compelling lens through which to assess both the administration’s
actions and the expectations of its citizens.
Anwar’s unity government came
into power in November 2022 amid political fragmentation, economic uncertainty,
and mounting social anxieties.
Hobbes believed that individuals
are willing to surrender certain liberties in exchange for protection and
stability, an idea that resonates strongly in Malaysia today. The
administration has embarked on sweeping reforms aimed at restoring fiscal
discipline, narrowing the budget deficit, and fostering long-term economic
resilience.
Chief among these is the
rationalization of fuel subsidies, beginning with RON95 petrol, and the
expansion of the sales and services tax (SST). These changes, though necessary
from a governance and economic standpoint, have generated anxiety among citizens
already burdened by high living costs.
In the Hobbesian framework, such
reforms are the sovereign’s attempt to provide security but they can only
succeed if the public perceives that their sacrifices are being met with
tangible, equitable outcomes.
The fear of losing one’s
livelihood or economic stability mirrors Hobbes’s portrayal of insecurity in
the state of nature. When individuals feel unprotected or perceive policies as
unjust, they may turn against the very structure meant to preserve order.
Anwar’s administration must
therefore tread carefully, ensuring that reforms do not deepen inequality or
alienate key voter bases, particularly the Malay majority who feel increasingly
disillusioned.
Budget 2025, with its record-high
spending and emphasis on targeted aid, aims to balance austerity with
inclusiveness. But execution is critical. Hobbes warned that a sovereign who
cannot enforce fairness or maintain the confidence of the people risks collapse
into chaos.
In his theory, Hobbes emphasized
that human conflict often arises not just from survival instincts but from the
desire for status and recognition. Malaysia’s deeply embedded socio-economic
hierarchies—defined along ethnic, class, and regional lines echo this dynamic.
Anwar’s flagship socio-economic
reform, the Bumiputera Transformation 2035 (PuTERA35), seeks to address these
disparities by elevating disadvantaged Malay communities through better
education, asset ownership, and entrepreneurial support.
Yet critics argue that its lack
of coordination and uneven implementation may inadvertently reinforce cronyism
or widen gaps between the elite and marginalized.
For Hobbes, the sovereign’s role
is not just to distribute resources but to do so transparently and impartially.
Failure to address perceived favouritism or inefficiency can provoke rivalry
and undermine national cohesion.
Another dimension of Hobbes’s
sovereign is the monopoly on the interpretation of laws. In Malaysia, Anwar’s
administration has moved to strengthen its control over public discourse by
expanding the scope of the Sedition Act and passing new laws under the
Communications and Multimedia Act and the Cyber Security Act.
While these measures are
justified by the government as necessary for maintaining harmony and preventing
extremism, they also curtail civil liberties and may stifle dissent. Hobbes
acknowledged that a sovereign must sometimes suppress liberties to prevent
disorder, but he also warned that overreach can erode trust.
For a diverse and increasingly
vocal Malaysian society, maintaining this balance between control and freedom
is a delicate act.
Externally, Hobbes’s concept of
the sovereign extends to international relations, where states act much like
individuals in the state of nature competing for power, resources, and
security. Anwar’s foreign policy, especially during Malaysia’s 2025 ASEAN
chairmanship, reflects this reality.
He has skilfully navigated
Malaysia’s position between competing powers, engaging with both the United
States and China while pursuing strategic partnerships with BRICS nations. This
balancing act is crucial to Malaysia’s sovereignty and stability, especially
amid global tensions in the South China Sea.
According to Hobbes, a strong
sovereign must shield its people from external threats and establish a reliable
role in the global order, objectives that Anwar seems committed to pursuing
through diplomacy and economic alignment.
So, what can Malaysians
realistically expect from Anwar’s government through the Hobbesian lens?
First, continued economic
restructuring that demands public patience and trust. Second, increased efforts
to centralize and streamline governance, eliminating duplication and
inefficiencies across state agencies. Third, a more regulated civic space, particularly
in the digital realm, as the state attempts to police misinformation and
preserve unity. Fourth, long-term social programs aimed at redistributing
wealth and uplifting vulnerable communities though their success hinges on
competent implementation and transparency. Finally, proactive international
engagement to secure Malaysia’s relevance and buffer it from external shocks.
Ultimately, Hobbes’s Leviathan
teaches us that authority, while sometimes restrictive, is necessary to prevent
descent into disorder. Anwar Ibrahim’s administration has assumed this
Hobbesian role: demanding sacrifices while promising security and order in
return.
Whether this social contract
holds will depend on the state’s ability to deliver justice, economic
opportunity, and peace across a pluralistic society. If Malaysians see that
their obedience yields protection and fairness, the Leviathan will be legitimized.
But if sacrifices are met with
inequality, repression, or inefficiency, the fragile compact may fracture and
Hobbes’s state of nature may not seem so hypothetical after all.
Kuala Lumpur.
20.07.2025
© All rights reserved.
Comments