Saddam and Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes was a seventeenth century philosopher who lives on as a scapegoat in many an Introduction to Philosophy class. Hobbes believed that without authority humans live "short, nasty, and brutish" lives. Therefore, he thought that a powerful central government was necessary for a stable and peaceful state. To most idealistic young students, myself included, this violates the notions that a government should be derived from the will of the population, and that a central authority should have only limited power over the lives of its subjects.

However, if you wanted to make a case to vindicate Hobbes, a terrific example exists in Iraq. Iraq was controlled by an extremely powerful tyrant who ruled with an iron fist and brutally suppressed dissent. This method of government held together three societies that hate each other for over a decade, even in the face of international sanctions and extreme pressure. As soon as Saddam Hussein, the Hobbesian totalitarian ruler, was removed, the society exploded into violence. Democracy and foreign influence have been unable to contain the turmoil, and life in Iraq has indeed become "short, nasty, and brutish."

While I'll probably never count myself a Hobbes disciple, this is certainly one example of a situation in which it would appear that the one solution an otherwise untenable situation was the supreme authority figure that Hobbes envisioned.

Quick Disclaimer: Please don't misread me to be saying that brutal tyranny is an acceptable form of government. My point is that a system in which I vehemently oppose finally and ironically has a case to support it.