After reading this article you will learn about John Locke:- 1. Life of John Locke 2. Political Ideas of John Locke 3. Influence on Political Thought.
Life of John Locke:
John Locke was born in 1632 (44 years after the birth of Hobbes) in a well-established famous family and died in 1704. His father was an Orthodox Christian and he wanted his son to study and cultivate religion. But Locke showed least interest in religion.
He began to study medicine. Some of his biographers say that his study of medicine helped him to be associated with the royal family He had a chance of first meeting in 1666 with Anthony Ashley Cooper and later on Cooper became Earl of Shaftsbury.
He also came in touch with other important families and persons. All these helped him to build up his career. But Locke’s relation with the royal family did not last long.
A sort of bitterness developed between Locke and the royal family on religious and political grounds and this disheartened him. He went to Holland and stayed there some time. While in Holland he developed cordial relationship with William.
When William became king of England Locke was appointed a commissioner of commerce and plantation. From his life we come to know that he came in contact with trade, commerce and administration and from these entire he earned huge experience.
At the age of 54 he first established himself as an author. His important works include Essays on Human Understanding, Letters Concerning Toleration. His most famous book—Two Treatises on Civil Government was published in or around 1690. Many people are of opinion that Locke wrote this book to justify the Glorious Revolution of 1688. But this view has been contested by some.
Maurice Cranston in his noted essay published in Thompson-edited Political Ideas says that much before the Glorious Revolution the book was written. Let us quote few lines from Cranston’s article.
He says:
“There is the idea that the book was written to justify the Glorious Revolution of 1688.”
Cranston further observes:
“It now seems that the book was written something like ten years before the Glorious Revolution”. According to Cranston this date is interesting. Of course the book was published after the Revolution.
Some people are of opinion that the Glorious Revolution did not take place abruptly. Discontent was simmering and favourable situation for the Revolution was developing. Locke was acquainted with it and it may safely be assumed that he had sympathy for the Revolution. He became known as the philosopher of the Glorious Revolution—Cranston observes in this way.
It is said that Locke’s Two Treatises is to some extent a polemical work. But Cranston is of opinion that it is immaterial. It is a good book of politics and philosophy. Particularly it has left behind a message of liberalism and a responsible government.
Locke’s Two Treatises is not an ordinary book. It is at par with Plato’s Republic and J. S. Mill’s Essay on Liberty. “Locke’s work is both theoretical and didactic. He passes from the particular question of his own duty to his own king to the general question of any man’s duty to any ruler and so to the problems of obligations and of sovereignty at the highest level of abstraction” (Thompson – Political Ideas). The basic problems Locke dealt with are to be found today. His concepts of consent, responsibility of the ruler to the people, constitutionalism, and basic liberties—all these still haunt us. Today in the twenty-first century we remember Locke for his ideas about rulers’ obligation to the ruled.
Political Ideas of John Locke:
1. State of Nature:
Like Thomas Hobbes, Locke starts his analysis with a hypothetical state of nature and in chapter II consisting of 12 sections (section 4 to 15) he has discussed various aspects of the imaginary state of nature.
In Locke’s opinion the state of nature was a state of perfect freedom. They had the liberty to do anything and everything. But according to Locke it was not a state of license because in the state of nature law of nature was quite operative.
This law of nature which was the embodiment of reason prevented men from doing harmful work. “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone, and reason….teaches all mankind….being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possession. Locke says that none shall be deprived of life, health, liberty and possessions or property. But in actual situation this did not happen.”
In the state of nature everybody had full freedom to do whatever he desired. They were guided by law of nature and its reason. But the problem is what is exactly the law of nature and its reason that was not known to the inhabitants of the state of nature.
Since the law of nature and its reason were not properly clarified and executed every man has a right to punish another man and very often that happened.
It is due to the fact that in the state of nature there was no authority to explain and execute the law of nature. People of the state of nature enjoyed unlimited freedom. But this unlimited freedom of some stood on the way of enjoying freedom for others.
John Locke has said that the people of the state of nature sometimes inflicted harm or injury upon others. But this they did not out of any bad motive but out of ignorance. But this does not mean that they were perfectly honest.
From Locke’s version we come to know that they were in-between morality and immorality. Though the people of the state of nature observed the law of nature, what was exactly this law was that created the problem Locke claims that in the state of nature there prevailed peace and order but that in a limited scale and because of this in the state of nature disorder very often raised its head. Locke is of opinion that it was the problem.
G. N. Gough is a renowned interpreter of Lockean philosophy. Gough says that he never meant that the law of nature was the supreme authority and everyone had clear conception about it.
In Gough’s view that was the problem. Misuse of the law of nature was quite rampant or prevalent. Gough has cautioned us by saying that we must not be emotional or over-enthusiastic about Locke’s law of nature.
Gough has said:
The law of nature is for him the moral standard to which all men, including governors themselves, should conform, and his insistence on it is the foundation of his case for limited constitutional government instead of the arbitrary power so dreaded and hated by contemporary Englishmen (John Lock’s Political Philosophy).
John Locke has claimed that in the state of nature there were several inconveniences. Dunning has beautifully stated that the state of nature as conceived by Locke is a pre-political rather than pre-social condition. In this single and small sentence Dunning has stated the real picture of Lockean state of nature.
The state of nature imagined by Locke was never the heaven on earth. But it was not definitely hell. Hobbes imagined that the state of nature was a hell—nasty, brutish and short. In this regard Locke differs from Hobbes. and this he clearly stated in sections 19 and 20.
In section 19 Locke says:
“The plain difference between the state of nature and the state of war which however some men have confounded are as far distant as a state of peace, good-will, mutual assistance, and preservation. Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth with authority to judge between them are properly the state of nature.” It is clear that Locke in this passage has unequivocally clarified the nature of state of na
ture. His words “some men” mean Hobbes.
Hobbes depicted the state of nature but Locke states that it is a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation. Locke has further stated that in the state of nature there was no common judge with authority.
There were aberrations or violations of law of nature. But without a common superior authority, there was none on earth to appeal. This was the most important inconvenience of the state of nature.
John Locke has also admitted that the people of the state of nature were very often guided by reason and good motive and in that situation they wanted to settle the disputes among themselves. But mere attempts or gesture were not sufficient.
Barker, explaining Locke’s view, says that the people of that atmosphere ardently desired to get rid of the difficulties of the state of nature and this thought finally motivated them to set up an authority who will implement the law of nature, to judge whether the implementation is impartial and proper.
They also decided to institute an authority whose function would be to enforce same law in a uniform manner. If all these steps are adopted the state of nature will not be an abode of disunity and trouble, it will be an abode of peace and tranquillity.
2. Social Contract:
In section 13 Locke says:
“I easily grant that civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniences of the state of nature, which must certainly be great where men may be judges in their own case.”
The proper remedy to the inconveniences of the state of nature is the erection of a civil government and the civil government alone cannot be the provider of remedy, a civil society was necessary.
The members of the state of nature felt that a judge was badly needed because only a judge with sufficient authority can put everything in order which was lacking in the state of nature.
Though Locke refuted Hobbes’s idea of state of war in the state of nature we hear him saying men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth with authority to judge between them, are properly the state of nature. But force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior to appeal for relief, is the state of war….To avoid this state of war…is one great reason of men’s putting themselves into society and quitting the state of nature, for where there is an authority, a power on earth…there the continuance of the state of war is excluded.
We thus see that Locke is, here, quite clear about his intention regarding the erection of civil society. Power was the best remedy to all evils that plagued the people of the state of nature. Why?
He says – “Political power, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death and consequently, all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property and of employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws and in the defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury.”
If we go through the entire process of social contract we shall find certain basic features. It was felt by the people of the state of nature that setting up of a civil society was the proper remedy to all inconveniences that people witnessed.
Hence we can conclude that social contract was a sort of mechanism that was used by the people to save from certain difficulties. Hobbes also saw this in the same light. In the opinion of Dunning the Lockean social contract was pre-political but not pre-social.
That is, people of the state of nature maintained amongst themselves social behaviour and manner which means that there was sociability among them. Contract politicized the society. Social contract was itself a mechanism or weapon. Again, the contract empowered the people to control the government to act in accordance with the conditions laid down in the contract.
According to the term of the contract people may or can demand security in various forms. If we go through the contract we shall find that everyone gave consent to the preparation of the contract and it is called the tacit consent.
Some interpreters of Locke’s philosophy argue that the inhabitants of the state of nature did two contracts—one is written and the other is unwritten. Before making social contract people did an unwritten contract among themselves and the objective of that contract was they desire to set up a civil society through a contract for better and safe living.
Recent interpreters of Locke’s political thought have said that Locke thought of double contract. The source of this idea comes from the words stated in sections 95, 97 and in several other sections. In section 97 we find him saying – “everyman, by consenting with others to make one body-politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation to everyone of that society to submit to the determination of the majority and to be concluded by it, or else, this original compact whereby he with others incorporates into one society.”
Here the two words— “original compact” are very significant. We can easily assume that he had in mind the existence of another contract, otherwise he could not use the word “original”.
We can assume that after making one compact, the people made another compact. The first compact set up a body-politic or civil society and the second compact enabled them the modus operandi of the management of body-politic.
John Locke was not satisfied by setting up a body-politic or commonwealth or civil society. The civil society to him was not simply a state, it must be a complete democracy and it is assumed that to achieve this another compact was made.
Let us see what he says in section 132:
“By commonwealth it must be understood to mean not a democracy or any form of government but any independent community which the Latins signified by the word civitas.”
According to Locke the word civitas means commonwealth. The administration and control of the body-politic shall be in the hands of the people. Perhaps this was in the mind of Locke and in order to do this there arose the necessity of another contract and Locke has done this. Locke was out and out a democrat. He had no intention to follow the footsteps of Hobbes, that is, to set an absolute power through the contract. One compact will lay the foundation of a civil society and another compact will make it a civitas or commonwealth.
3. Liberalism:
J. S. McClelland (History of Western Political Thought) writes:
“Liberals have always shown a certain fondness for Locke, and it is easy to see why. Certain assumptions which Locke makes, certain attitudes which he held and certain arguments which he uses, fit in well with the doctrine which at the beginning of the nineteenth century came to be called liberalism.”
J. S. McClelland wants to say that in the Second Treatise Locke makes several comments which clearly lay the foundation of liberalism.
Pie says that property is a natural right and simultaneously it is inviolable. Property can, however, be taken but behind this there must be free and voluntary consent of the owner. Locke has said that in the state of nature people enjoyed the facilities of private property but because of certain inconveniences of the state of nature the enjoyment of the benefits of private property very often faced interruptions.
This situation inspired them to set up a system of administration that could give guarantee right to property. The right to property was so important to Locke that without the consent of people’ or owner of the property nobody had any right to levy taxes on property. That is levy of tax must be preceded by owner’s consent.
John Locke wrote a book Letter Concerning Toleration. This book conveys his idea about liberalism. He has said that everybody should practice
toleration about others and this toleration will teach people not to intervene in the private affairs of other individuals. To put it in other words, the right to privacy is a basic right and the democratic states have admitted it and made it a part of the constitutional rights.
Rationality or rational behaviour is an essential feature of liberalism and its existence in Lockean philosophy has encouraged them to find out liberalism in Locke. The liberals claim that in the Lockean analysis of contract there is enough emphasis on rationality. The individuals are well-aware of their rights as well as responsibility to other fellow citizens and society.
The liberals call it rationality. Another manifestation of Locke’s idea of rationality is that they formed a civil society for the proper protection and utilization of natural rights and somehow they were confident that only in a civitas it is possible and for that purpose they made a second compact.
It indicates their rationality. It is also said that to live in a civil society implies obligations. That is, in the state of nature the people had no feeling of obligation. But in civil society everyone must have the feeling of obligation; Locke’s people had that feeling.
Another element of Locke’s theory of social contract is “Lockean model of society is competitive capitalist model. Men are free to acquire and are encouraged by God to do so.” Free competition and capitalism are important parts or aspects of liberal philosophy.
In Locke’s time capitalism was in embryonic stage and its proper development required congenial atmosphere and Locke, through the instrumentality of contract, wanted to ensure this.
A very important element of Locke’s liberalism is to be found in his concept of slate as a fiduciary trust. He thought that the general public was the source of government’s power. Again, the government is always accountable to the people for all its policies and acts.
The people have also the power to dislodge the government if it fails to act according to the terms and conditions of the contract.
Locke’s concept of fiduciary trust is unique and this has introduced the famous idea of constitutionalism which is the main feature of the American constitution. Its central idea is that both the rulers and the ruled are bound by the principles laid down in the constitution.
Locke’s separation of power is another important part of his liberalism and needless to say that it is an important part.
In section 134 he has said that men left the state of nature and set up a civil society for the purpose of protection, and enjoyment of property peacefully. But this cannot be done without laws and it is the chief function of the legislature to enact laws.
Its implication is that legislature constitutes a branch of state and supreme power is vested in this organ. But the execution of laws shall be vested in a body of persons which is separate from the legislative body.
The legislative and executive powers are separated from each other. Though these two organs are separate from each other both are governed by the same laws.
Locke says that after the formation of civil society a state or body-politic will have to establish relation with other states to deal with war and peace and for the purposes of making alliances. Locke calls this function federative. In other words what we call today international or foreign affairs function Locke calls it federative.
We thus, in Lockean model, get three departments or organs of government— legislative, executive and federative. Hence we find that much before Montesquieu (1689-1755) Locke initiated the idea of separation of power. The framers of the American constitution later on made it a part of their constitution. In the eighteenth century the idea was regarded as key to the principle of bringing state authority under control. It was also thought that if powers are separated from each other that will put proper check on the government.
Democracy is a part of Lockean theory of liberalism. We want to mention few features of Locke’s idea of democracy:
(1) Locke has said that the contract has been finalized by taking the consent of everyone. Subsequently some may differ from others but this difference of opinion may be taken as normal.
(2) The opinion of the majority shall be the principle of day-to-day administration.
(3) The state shall be administered by the principle of law and terms laid down in the contract. This is the constitutionalism. It is believed that constitutionalism is the basic aspect of democracy and the liberals of all types emphasize it as a very crucial part of democracy.
(4) An important aspect of Locke’s idea of democracy is that people are the real source of government’s power. Today many may call it as a type of popular sovereignty. Implication is the entire state shall be managed by the will of the people.
(5) Locke has called the newly created civil society as a trust. It means the state acts only for the benefit and welfare of people. In other words, it is the custodian of people’s interests. Locke thought of a continuous relation between the ruler and the ruled. Government cannot do anything against people’s interests.
(6) In today’s democracy we talk about the protection of certain basic rights and Locke said so. To him right to property, security and life was essential and any authority worthy of its name must make arrangement for the protection of these three basic rights.
(7) Locke was quite cautious of the rights and privileges of citizens and in a democratic state all these are quite safe but not in an autocracy. That is why we find that from the very beginning he framed principles which will control the state authority He did not think about making sovereign power absolute.
4. Bourgeois Ideas:
C. B. Macpherson and many others after painstaking research have discovered Locke’s sympathy with the capitalists. J. S. McClelland says “The Lockean model of society is a competitive, capitalist model—Men are free to acquire and are encouraged by God to do so.”
Macpherson says:
“Locke’s constitutionalism is a defence of the rights of expanding property rather than of individuals against the state.”
Another critic’s opinion runs:
“Locke deliberately intended to lead up to a justification of unlimited capitalist appropriation, and the resultant unequal distribution of property. What made this possible along with the invention of money, was the fact that he regarded labour as alienable property, which a man could sell for wages.”
We have quoted three observations of three eminent persons who are experts of Lockean philosophy. From three different angles they have viewed Locke’s bourgeois concept. In numerous places of The Second Treatise Locke has said that one of the reasons of abandoning the state of nature was the insecurity of property.
The implication is in the state of nature people were deprived of the adequate use of property, that is, property was quite insecure in that natural atmosphere. This feeling was so intense that they decided to abandone the state of nature.
It is interesting to note that the concept of state of nature is simply a symbol. What he wanted to emphasize is that protection and personal use of property was very important to them.
The idea of state of nature is simply a fiction. In the natural condition people will be highly concerned about property—is simply an imagination. Only in a developed and well-ordered society people’s concern for property can be imagined.
We can say John Locke was actually thinking of a capitalist state. It may be that Locke’s capitalist society or state was purely in primary condition. But it is out of our consideration. Locke’s model of state is a capitalist state.
C. B. Macpherson has said that Locke was uncompromising supporter of capit
alism. He further observes that the transition from state of nature to civil society, in the opinion of C. B. Macpherson, is not simply the product of an idle brain, it is a calculated step safeguarding the interests of capitalists or owners of the vast amount of property.
This occupied the mind of Locke and setting up of a state was the best possible way. Lockean state may have manifold functions but the most important one is to protect the property which was insecure in the state of nature.
Macpherson says:
“Locke’s whole theory of limited and conditional government was essentially a defence of property. The view of Locke’s state is in effect a joint stock company whose shareholders were the men of property”. He was so much interested in acquisition and protection of property that he has allotted a complete chapter—Chapter 5 consisting of 27 sections.
John Locke was quite concerned about the security of people. Macpherson has explained it differently. Only the property owners or wealthy persons seriously think of their security and safety.
Again, those who think in this way are rational. It is quite natural that the propertied person will always try to be conscious of the proper security of property Locke has interpreted is as rationality. Macpherson has interpreted it in this way.
Macpherson says:
“When man, in general is thus conceived in the image of bourgeois rational man, the natural condition of man is eminently rational and peaceable”. Rich and poor people, according to Macpherson, living in the same society cannot be equally rational.
It is not that the poor people are not rational. Their rationality is of different type. Macpherson says that Locke’s idea of rationality is chiefly the rationality of rich people.
Locke has categorically stated that man owns property through his own labour and he has every right over it. But when he found that some people here conspire to misappropriate his property through unfair means or by means of physical force, these people decided to create an institution whose one of the important functions would be to protect property.
Furthermore, he has said in his chapter on property that the individuals have every right over the property and it cannot be taken away without their consent. The framers of the American constitution borrowed this concept from Locke and they have made right to property a fundamental right.
One of the main features of capitalism is a state or society is always a class state. Now J. S. McClelland raises an important question—Is Locke’s state a class state or society? Locke never tells us in the Second Treatise, but there are broad hints elsewhere in his works, especially in his draft Constitution for the Carolina, where he refers to his “American Polity as a democracy of God’s proprietors”. According to Locke the state is a regulating mechanism.
It will regulate the state affairs for the protection of property. In the opinion of Macpherson— “The whole theory of property is a justification of the natural right not only to unequal property but to unlimited individual appropriation”. Only the property-owners took the leading part in setting up of new state or civil society.
5. Civil Society:
John Dunn in his illuminating essay John Locke’s conception of civil society claims that only two genuinely great political thinkers—namely Locke and Hegel—have used the term civil society. This claim has solid reason. In a number of places Locke has used the terms civil society or civil government.
In section 13 he writes:
“I easily grant that civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniences of the state of nature.” Again, in section 95, we find him saying “The only way whereby anyone divests himself of his natural liberty and puts on the bonds of civil society is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community.”
Here I have cited two instances to establish that Locke was conscious of the idea of civil society. There is a difference between civil government and civil society but in Locke’s ideas both were used almost in the same since.
Locke has clearly stated that the civil society is the proper remedy for the inconveniences of the state of nature. John Locke thought that the civil society had two important advantages over the state of nature. One is the civil society is governed by civil laws which are far better than the laws of nature or natural laws.
He thought that the laws of a civil society are clear and certain and can be easily applied. In a civil society there are impartial judges. Locke thought that for the protection of life, liberty and property impartiality of judges was indispensable and the state of nature lacked this. For the implementation of laws there shall be a political power. In section 3 he has said that the political power is the proper authority to make and implement laws. Needless to say that only in a civil society this is possible.
Sunil Khilnani in his article The Development of Civil Society makes certain observations about Locke’s idea on civil society. “For Locke, the fundamental contrast defining a civil society was the state of nature – a predicament in which deeply held individual beliefs about how to be collided and where there could be no authoritative answer to the question “Who will be judges?”
A civil society was one purged as effectively as possible of this condition. Locke made no separation between civil society and political society. Rather, a civil society was a “benign state”, a legitimate political order.
John Dunn has repeatedly used the term benign state by which he means to state that Locke’s state is actually a harmless state or civil society and state are both used by him interchangeably John Dunn has repeatedly used the term benign state in place of civil society.
Locke’s civil society is simply a Civilized Society which is an aggregation of some “civilized” people. Locke has not categorically used the word civilized in his long analysis. But it has been assumed by his interpreters that only disciplined men can think of forming a civil society by throwing away their uncivilised behaviour which they displayed in the state of nature.
Their dissatisfaction about the state of nature is a clear indication of the fact that they were guided by reason and not by emotion. At the same time we can note that Locke’s people loved democracy and hated autocracy.
John Dunn has thrown ample light on Lockean theory of civil society. He observes that Locke’s civil society does not refer to a political or social substance that can be set over against an existent state.
What he refers to in modern terminology is essentially the state liked the non-pathological state. Dunn’s term the state liked is really innovative. It means that Locke’s state is not an all-powerful state with absolute sovereign power. But it is not simply a conglomeration of discrete individuals.
So Locke’s civil society is benign state, state liked. Locke had no intention to prepare the framework of a state in modern sense or in Hobbesian way.
He could have done it but he did not do that. Hobbes’s state was the claimant of coercion and effective monopoly of power (Dunn). It is to be noted that both Hobbes’s and Locke’s men were very clever persons. Hobbes’s people gave consent to the absoluteness of sovereign power. On the other hand, Locke’s men gave their approval to the democratic process to be followed by the authority of the civil society or, to use Dunn’s phrase, state liked.
Analysing Lockean concept of civil society John Dunn further observes that the civil society in Lockean conception is the “optimal remedy for the state of nature.”
In the background of social, political and economic condition of Locke’s contemporary society the concept of civil society was the best solution.
“But Dunn further adds that it is necessarily an “imperfect remedy.”
In Dunn’s judgment there were imperfections in his plan of civil society. But in one sense Locke’s plan of civil society is really wonderful. He did not place an absolute sovereign power at the top of the administration of civil society.
Like Hobbes he could easily do that, but he did not do. By making it democratic he paved the way for constitutionalism and liberalism. Here lies his credit.
6. Popular Sovereignty and Resistance:
The name of the last chapter of Locke’s Second Treatise runs—Of the Dissolution of Government. Locke was an eyewitness of the political turmoil’s that took place in the last two decades of the seventeenth century.
Particularly the autocratic rule of some rulers moved his mind and thought. Several questions were raised in his mind. He was thinking about the consequences of tyrannical rule. In the background of these incidents he wrote the above chapter.
John Morrow in his A History of Political Thought:
A Thematic Introduction writes the following words:
“Locke produced an account of sovereignty as a form of trusteeship and he argued that when the terms of the relationship are breached the bonds of civil society are dissolved.”
An interesting point in Locke’s analysis is that there is no illegitimate political rule. It means that whenever an existing government loses confidence of the general mass that government is removed from power.
Since the legislature is the holder of supreme power, any violation of the terms and conditions of the contract will lead people to dissolve the assembly. Moreover this dissolution will free the people from showing their obligation to the assembly.
That is why Locke has said there is nothing like misrule or illegal administration. Locke has repeatedly said that the assembly or legislature is the trustee of the people. It implies that the primary duty of the legislature is to act in accordance with the terms laid down in the compact.
Explaining Locke’s views about rights and duties of the people John Morrow says:
“Locke regarded resistance as an individual right, but he also thought that individuals have a duty to resist unjust governors. But since resistance takes place in a situation where government has already been dissolved, the duty to resist is one that individuals impose on themselves”.
“At the outbreak of the religious wars in 1562 the Prince de Conde, as leader of the Huguenots, issued a declaration justifying his decision to resort to arms” (Quentin Skinner. The foundations of modern political thought-II). The clear purpose of this observation is that in the second half of the sixteenth century religious in-toleration reached its zenith and the innocent people were indiscriminately murdered. These innocent people were known as Huguenots.
They demanded that for the sake of self-defence they had the right to resist. Naturally the right to resist was not new when Locke was writing his Second Treatise. What is new is that the right to resist an autocratic ruler or a person who had violated the terms of the contract and was administering the civil society in an autocratic way.
Several thousand Huguenots were killed because of the insistence of the fact that they had the right to practice their religious faith and several thousand people were murdered in the Bartholomew Massacre in 1572. We think that Locke was acquainted with this incident and keeping this in mind he strongly emphasized the right to resistance.
There is a very important aspect in Locke’s theory of popular sovereignty and resistance. In section 241 he has raised a very vital question—who shall be judge? The background of this question is if the people have the right to dislodge a government from power on the ground of its failure the pertinent question is who shall judge the failure of the government.
In the previous section (section, 240). Locke says—who shall be judge whether the prince or legislative act contrary to their trust? To this I reply – The people shall be judge, for who shall be judge whether his trustee or deputy acts well and according to the trust reposed in him but he who deputes him and must have still a power to discard him when he fails in his trust? The five words, The people shall be judge—clearly establish that Locke was thinking of popular sovereignty. The final authority shall be vested in the hands of people and popular sovereignty says so.
Locke was a very intelligent man and his thought achieved full maturity when he published his Second Treatise in 1689, because by that time he was 57 years old.
Naturally he could not think that resistance or revolution could be the normal way of any civil society. That on any flimsy ground an elected government cannot be dislodged from power. In several places he has said that the subjects should be prepared to tolerate both “minor mismanagement” and isolated “great mistakes.” Mistakes, violations of rules and numerous other mismanagements may occur. Locke does not advise his people to ignore, but to tolerate and if necessary they may resort to legal avenues for redressal. Locke calls this toleration.
He apprehended that if governments are repeatedly removed from power that would create an anarchical situation. He was of the view that, in a civil society, there should exist law and order and, at the same time, peace.
If governments are frequently removed from power peace shall be the victim. The point however remains that people have the right to judge the right and wrong of the government and have the right to resist.
Nozick’s Assessment of Political Ideas of John Locke:
Robert Nozick in his Anarchy, State and Utopia has assessed John Locke’s political ideas from various angles. In Chapter 2 Nozick says that Locke’s civil society may reasonably be called protective association. The term protective association (or protection association) is quite significant.
In the state of nature there were inconveniences and groups of people assembled together to find out or remedy to these inconveniences and the consequence was that they formed an association (in Locke’s language civil society).
This association protects them from the difficulties and Nozick calls it a protective association. The members will form a protective association does not mean that this association will be at the beck and call of the members to deal with all problems and find out solutions. Again, this association will not follow a policy of non-intervention.
The exact role of the protective association will be to adopt certain rules and procedures which will find out solutions to the grievances raised by the members of the association.
The protective association is not a state with absolute power. The main function of such association will be to protect the people from the feuds or irrational behaviour. The protective association will follow or adopt a middle way.
Its policy will never be a policy of non-intervention or to intervene in all affairs of citizens. The associations will save the members from anarchy and, in the words of Locke, the inconveniences.
The members of the state of nature formed such protective associations on the basis of voluntary arrangements. So we find that the Voluntary arrangements constitute the main part of the protective association.
Influence of Locke on Political Thought:
It is little bit difficult to assess the importance of Locke who is considered as a controversial political philosopher. But he was also very popular notwithstanding his inconsistencies. We shall quote here several observations made by eminent persons.
On
the occasion of Locke’s tercentenary in 1932 Ernest Barker wrote an article which was published in the Times Literary Supplement. In this article Barker wrote “It was the political theory of Locke which affected the nation at large most deeply. Nor did it affect England. It penetrated into France and passed through Rousseau into the French Revolution, it penetrated into the North American colonies.”
We find a tremendous impact of Locke’s book—The Two Treatises—on the American Constitution. The framers of this constitution borrowed several ideas from Locke’s book—such as separation of powers, constitutionalism, and right to property, life and liberty.
Maxey rightly says:
The Declaration of Independence is but a Thunderous transcript of this mighty book (Political Philosophies). Let us now turn to another assessment. In the political philosophy of Locke the Whigs in England found a justification for their regime.
At the same time it provided agrarian reformers. Locke had a number of admirers in France. Voltaire was both a critic and supporter of Locke. In fact, Voltaire popularized many ideas of Locke and Locke got French supporters.
I have already noted the influence of Locke on the preparation of the constitution. Again I want to point out another aspect of his influence.
A critic observes in the following words “So close is the Declaration of Independence to Locke in form, phraseology and content that Jefferson was accused of copying the Second Treatise. Not only this.”
Several states of America copied verbatim the words and ideas from Locke in the preparation of their constitution. Locke is treated by many as the father of modern liberalism and United States is perhaps the first state which borrowed Locke’s liberalism and implemented it. Hence we can say that the foundation of American liberalism is Locke’s political philosophy.
Plamenatz, a renowned critic of political philosophies, makes the following observation:
“His writings do not conclusively prove that he was a democrat. But the principles which he proclaimed in an era of aristocratic resistance to absolute monarchy are used in the West to justify liberal democracy. We may find many of Locke’s argument inconclusive, we may think of him too careless and superficial. But his heart is in the right place, for that place is pretty much where our heart in the West is today.”
Plamenatz wants to say that the words and phrases used by Locke are sometimes misleading. But if we study his heart or what he wants to say we shall find that his heart really longs for democracy, liberty and rights. These are the most valuable concepts of political science.
The best tribute, I think, comes from C. L. Wayper:
“His is the last great voice of one great generation and first great voice of another great generation.”
He could not bring himself out of medieval atmosphere. But he did not accept it. But he laid the foundation of a new era of politics—era of liberalism, democracy, popular sovereignty.