THE KING IS THE PEOPLE AND THE PEOPLE IS THE KING: HOBBES FACING DEMOCRACY

Ostavljajući po strani Hobbesove ideološke preferencije u sukobu oko ustrojstva engleskog političkog tijela u 17. stoljeću, u tekstu se problematizira način na koji je demokracija vrednovana u njegovim ključnim teorijskopolitičkim djelima. Autor to čini na dvije razine. Prvo se ispituje status demokracije u okviru Hobbesova nauka o državnim oblicima. Unatoč nekim njezinim nedostacima Hobbes u sve tri varijante svoje znanosti o politici ne smatra kako postoji racionalno opravdanje za odbacivanje demokracije kao jednoga od triju ravnopravnih oblika države. Zatim se ispituje općenitija teza o demokratskom karakteru Hobbesova shvaćanja države, neovisno o njezinu obliku. Pritom se u obzir uzimaju različiti elementi Hobbesove znanosti o politici: pravna jednakost stranaka društvenog sporazuma, njihov status autora suverene vlasti, njihova sloboda kao podanika i dužnosti suverena. Njihova analiza ukazuje na nužnost diferenciranog odgovora na pitanje o demokratskom karakteru Hobbesove teorije države.Leaving aside Hobbes’s ideological preferences in the conflict regarding the structure of the English political body in the 17th century, the text deals with the way in which democracy is valued in his key theoretical-political works. The author does this on two levels: first, he examines the status of democracy within the framework of Hobbes’s doctrine of state forms. In spite of some of its shortcomings, in none of the three variants of his science of politics does Hobbes deem that there is a rational justification for discarding democracy as one of three equally ranked forms of state. Second, the author inquires into the more general thesis of the democratic character of Hobbes’s understanding of the state regardless of its form. Various elements of Hobbes’s science of politics are thereby taken into account: legal equality of parties to the social contract, their status as authors of sovereign power, their freedom as subjects and the duties of the sovereign. The analysis thereof points to the necessity of a differentiated answer to the question regarding the democratic character of Hobbes’s theory of state