Which one of the following thinkers differentiate between 'Instituted sovereignty and acquired sovereignty'?

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 1:

[Detailed explanation of why it is correct — include conceptual, or contextual depth.]

The thinker who differentiated between 'Sovereignty by Institution' and 'Sovereignty by Acquisition' is Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), as articulated in his monumental work, *Leviathan*. Hobbes's entire political theory revolves around escaping the 'State of Nature,' which he defined as a war of all against all. Sovereignty, for Hobbes, is the only solution to this chaos. He recognized that the legitimate authority of a sovereign could be established in two primary ways, both fundamentally based on fear and the desire for self-preservation. Sovereignty by Institution occurs when men voluntarily, through mutual covenant, agree among themselves to submit to a sovereign power out of fear of each other, thereby creating a political society. Sovereignty by Acquisition, on the other hand, occurs when a sovereign power is established through force or conquest, and the defeated submit to the conqueror out of fear of death or physical restraint. Crucially, Hobbes argued that in terms of power, authority, and the absolute obedience owed by the subjects, there is no difference between the two types of sovereignty. Both are equally legitimate ways to establish the absolute authority necessary to maintain peace and order, confirming the foundational premise of his social contract theory that security is the paramount political goal.

The incorrect option is 2:

[Detailed explanation of why it is incorrect — include conceptual, or contextual depth.]

James Buchanan (1919–2013) was a Nobel laureate economist known primarily for his contributions to Public Choice Theory, which applies economic analysis to political decision-making. His work focused heavily on constitutional political economy, including voluntary exchange, collective choice, and constitutional contracts among individuals, primarily addressing issues of government scale and efficiency. While Buchanan’s analysis deals with the limits of governmental power and the voluntary formation of rules (similar to a contract), his framework does not employ the classical distinction between 'Instituted' and 'Acquired' sovereignty. His theories are modern, neoclassical in approach, and belong to a separate school of thought that is distinct from the 17th-century social contract theories concerning the genesis of absolute authority.

The incorrect option is 3:

[Detailed explanation of why it is incorrect — include conceptual, or contextual depth.]

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) is a seminal figure in political realism, best known for *The Prince*. Machiavelli’s primary focus was not on the formal justification or classification of sovereignty but on the practical means by which a ruler (a Prince) could acquire, maintain, and expand power. He advised on the effective use of force, cunning, and prudence—often separating political action from morality. While he extensively discussed how principalities are acquired (either by fortune, virtue, crime, or consent), his analysis does not feature Hobbes’s structured legalistic distinction between sovereignty derived from 'institution' (mutual consent) and 'acquisition' (conquest and subsequent submission), as the very concept of absolute legal sovereignty was still evolving in political philosophy during his time.

The incorrect option is 4:

[Detailed explanation of why it is incorrect — include conceptual, or contextual depth.]

Harold Laski (1893–1950) was a prominent British political theorist, influential Fabian, and a leading exponent of Pluralism, particularly in his early works. Political pluralists like Laski fundamentally challenged the monistic concept of sovereignty, arguing that sovereignty is not located solely in the state but is diffused among various associations, groups, and institutions within society. Laski would have strongly opposed Hobbes’s notion of absolute, indivisible sovereignty. His later work shifted toward Marxism, but he remained focused on issues like rights, liberty, and democratic socialism, which are far removed from Hobbes’s analytical categorization of the establishment of an absolute sovereign power through institution or acquisition.