Authority not truth makes law
This year, the Augustinian Province in Malta is celebrating its bicentenary of ‘independence’ from Sicily. In 1817, after forty years of arduous lobbying, this community, in Malta, succeeded in upgrading its status to that of a province within the Catholi
Dr Simon Mercieca is senior lecturer, Department of History
The Augustinians were the first monastic order to become independent of Sicily. To commemorate this milestone, they invited Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi to give a public talk. In this blog, I wish to take the cue from a comment made by this erudite speaker where he reminded his audience that Modern Europe is built on Hobbes’ precepts. He quoted his famous phrase that has become a political dictum of the Modern State: ‘Auctoritas nec veritas fecit legem”- Authority not truth makes law. Unfortunately, Ravasi did not expand on this principle, which I strongly believe is one of the reasons why Europe, and democracy in particular, are experiencing difficult times.
Thomas Hobbes is usually acclaimed as the harbinger of modern politics and modern statehood. In Anglo-Saxon literature, his works are highly respected, as not only is he considered a philosopher, who advocated the separation between Church and State, but more importantly, as the one who through his writings, sought to destroy the moral and political power of Rome.
Unlike what is normally stated in Anglo-Saxon books, Southern Europe was initially enjoying the upper hand after the Reformation. Hobbes’ book, the Leviathan, came at a point in history where the North seemed to have lost its political battle for authority and cultural hegemony. It is at this stage that Hobbes speaks strongly about the state’s superiority over ecclesiastical authority. He wrote his political work in English, to express this basic Latin concept that: authority not truth makes law.
Many, to-day, may disagree with Hobbes’ dictum, nonetheless, they hold on to the principle that the State should have the final say. But what is the State? The eventual political victory of the North clearly showed that this was the winning formula in Europe.
But what is wrong with Hobbes’ argument? What’s wrong with the separation of Religion and State? What’s wrong with the State being superior to the Church? Nowadays many are of the opinion that Church or religion should not be superior nor equal to the State. As Hobbes declares, Religion should be subject to the State.
In theory, this argument appears to be the correct one and I have no problem with it. But such victory comes at a price. The problem rests on the issue of the exercise of power. The philosophy of the Catholic Church has been that power should be exercised for the service of truth. The same holds for other faiths, including Islam.
One can here debate ‘truth’, for the ‘truth’ for Islam is different to the truth in Roman Catholicism, and Roman Catholic truth is different to that of the Calvinist or Lutheran. But the basic principle is common to all: power is at the service of truth.
For Muslims, truth is based on the Koran, for Hebrews on the Torah and for Christians, it is the Bible. This was the philosophy that moved politics in Europe throughout the Middle Ages. This was the philosophy that brought about the creation of Europe as a continent and as a political power. This is why one can rightly state that Europe is a Christian construct. The modern European State came about through substituting Truth with Authority.
Hobbes’ view of power was very clear. Power should be exercised by the ruler of a State in order to assert authority. Therefore, Hobbes had no problem that his Leviathan, or the huge creature that is mentioned in the Bible, is a leader with authoritarian powers, provided that this monster offers protection to his subjects.
From a historical point of view, it was Darwin and not Hobbes who caused the greatest upheaval to this principle when, through his writings, he showed that the Bible does not represent scientific truth. This explains why most of the modern European dictators were atheists. This is why modern Europe is seeking to be democratic on the principle of authority rather than truth.
The point here is not whether the Bible can be taken as the embodiment of truth, but whether the law should be at the service of truth or at the service of power. In my opinion, it was the successful exclusion of religion from power that brought about the situation where law is no longer at the service of truth but is there to accommodate authority. This enables that same law to be twisted, turned and interpreted freely by different bodies and individuals. Law ceased to be based on absolute principles. The irony is that Hobbes’ dictum ended up pervading religion. If one claims to have authority, then one thinks that one has a divine right to enact laws and that these laws are the expression of the truth.
Many, in Europe, think that the laws that our politicians are enacting are no longer an expression of truth. This, in part, explains the frustration with Brussels. Brussels is being seen, more and more, as an expression of authority. In this scenario, popular rebellion becomes natural. This is why I do not consider populism a threat. On the contrary, this is people’s normal reaction to a perverse situation that has come about when truth has been substituted by authority.
The end result of Hobbes’ philosophy is more than obvious. Since laws are now at the service of authority and not at the service of truth, facts are easily ignored and alternative facts or fake facts are being accepted more easily as truths as long as they uphold the elements that are expedient to authority.
Ideally, politicians should be at the service of truth and not authority. Unfortunately, a number of incidents are now making it clear that politicians are far more interested in authority than truth. They know that by being at the service of authority, they can get kickbacks. This is the meaning of Hobbes’ concept of authority. Modern Authority is there to make money. Truth is there to serve ulterior ideals but is not necessarily as tangible as money.
No politician will be able to reverse this situation. One could state that Europe is trying to please all, but ending up not pleasing anyone. It is seeking to please the liberals, the LGBT communities who, in religion, in particular Christianity, see the main stumbling block to achieve their aims. I honestly consider all this as a dangerous melting pot. Nevertheless, there are other reasons, possibly hidden, which are not normally discussed in public. These too are being driven by businessmen, who think that with money they can ensure that their party or candidates are electable. In truth, money is extremely important for winning elections, and as recent episodes in Malta go to show, this also comes at a cost.
The end result is that the intelligent voter is seeing the socalled traditional parties in Europe as being alike. Today, one cannot concur with St Augustine who perceived how citizens would regard their political leaders in analogous situations. In the City of God, Augustine rightly asks: “Without justice how would democracies look, except a den of thieves?” I here use the word democracies while Augustine uses kingdoms – but clearly in this text he is referring to the system of government during his times. Today we have democracies instead of kingdoms. However, I do not see much progress having been made since the 5th century. On the contrary, Malta together with the rest of Europe is manifesting the same political regression that existed in Augustine’s time vis-à-vis the established political authority, with the difference, that in Medieval Times, there were strong and diverse religious models that guaranteed progress.
The big confusion created in contemporary Europe around concepts of inclusion, diversity and cosmopolitanism has turned Islam into the only religion capable of inflicting fear to the Leviathan’s authoritarian rule. This is why many are now considering Islam as the future religion of Europe, even though this challenge is not based on the concept of truth but on the principle of power or authority.