How did John Locke’s social contract theory differ from Thomas Hobbes’s theory of sovereignty?

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke offered contrasting views on the social contract and the nature of political authority. While both used the social contract as a theoretical tool to justify government, their conclusions regarding the power of the sovereign differed significantly.12

Thomas Hobbes: Absolute Sovereignty

For Hobbes, the state of nature is a state of war where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". To escape this, individuals collectively transfer their right of self-governance to a sovereign (the Leviathan) in exchange for physical security.314
* Absolute Power: The sovereign’s authority is absolute and not bound by law, as the sovereign is not a party to the contract but the recipient of the people's surrendered rights.42
* Limited Resistance: Subjects only retain the right to disobey if the sovereign fails to protect their lives, as the primary purpose of the state is collective security.42

John Locke: Conditional Authority

Locke viewed the state of nature as a condition where individuals are naturally free and equal, bound by the law of nature to respect the rights of others to life, liberty, and property.52
* Conditional Consent: Unlike Hobbes, Locke argued that the social contract is a conditional agreement. The government is instituted to act as an impartial arbiter to protect these pre-existing natural rights.21
* Right of Revolution: Because political power is a "morally sanctioned capacity" for the public good, authority is derived from the consent of the governed. If a government violates these terms or becomes oppressive, the people have a justified right to revolution.523

In essence, Hobbes prioritized the stability of an absolute sovereign to prevent anarchy, whereas Locke emphasized the protection of individual rights and the accountability of government to the people.32