Back to The Evolution
of Democracy.
The Evolution of Democracy:
Part 5:
John Locke on Civil Government:
In part 4, I discussed Locke's first Treatise of Civil Government
wherein he attacked the theory of divine right monarchy and debunked
Hobbes' theory of absolute sovereignty. In this essay I would
like to discuss Locke's second treatise. In particular I want
to look at how his theories of civil government square with the
American concepts of freedom and democracy.
Locke's thoughts agreed with Hobbes, in that he sees government as an artificial contrivance produced by a contract between the people. Where he differs is in the matter of absolute authority. Locke holds that there is none. To Locke, the government is always subject to the petition and will of the people who created it.
Furthermore, Locke holds that the right of revolution is inherent in the people. This idea was to have serious ramifications for the English government in 1776, when our founding fathers made their famous declaration of July Fourth. History buffs will note that a similar thing happened to the French Monarchy in 1789 when the French people followed the American lead. Locke's words rang true for both of these causes.
His arguments begin with the idea that man in a state of nature is in perfect freedom. In that condition, his law is the law of nature which Locke decides is reason. He supports this notion with the idea that everyone is bound to preserve his own self. He is not likely to forfeit his life on purpose. Therefore, by extension, he is likely to act to preserve mankind and is not likely to threaten or take the life of another man, unless the fellow has acted to cause himself punishment. In fact, we can expect him to preserve "....the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."
So we see that Locke believes that man has a right to life, liberty, health, and property. In his natural state of perfect freedom, he has the power to enforce that natural law. However, Locke acknowledges that in reality things are not always so rosy. Because of what he calls human impartiality, the law would not always be enforced evenly. So he concludes that "Civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniences of the state of nature..."
The basis of civil government is the civil society. This comes into being when a group of men join together in agreement. Each agrees to give up his power to enforce the natural law for himself and assigns it to the public. They do this for the purpose of making one people and one political body under one supreme government. Other men may also joint themselves to an existing government. Each man has then authorized the government to make laws for him. These laws, of course, are for the public good. The government may also call on each man to execute the laws so made.
This takes man out of the state of nature and puts him into a commonwealth. Through this commonwealth, man sets up "a judge on earth..." This judge is the legislative or any magistrates appointed by the legislative. In either case the judge has the authority to resolve controversies and redress injuries which happen to members of the commonwealth. Locke concludes that any men who have no such decisive authority are still in a state of nature.
Locke also makes clear his thoughts on absolute monarchy. In his opinion, it is inconsistent with civil society and is not a civil government at all. The point of civil society is to avoid the inconveniences of the state of nature by setting up a known authority. Then everyone in the society may appeal for redress of injuries or resolution of disagreements. Then every one in that society is obliged to obey the decisions of the authority. Whenever people have no such authority, they are not in a civil society. They are in a state of nature.
So every man under the dominion of an absolute prince is in a state of nature. Since the monarch has all authority and power unto himself, there is no appeal. Injuries suffered by order of the monarch cannot be redressed or even heard. Here, Hobbes' theory of absolute monarchy is clearly rejected. It is not a government at all, but a different form of the state of nature. In this case, the monarch has all of the freedom of the state of nature plus the power to work his will without restraint.
In Locke's philosophy, the purpose of government is to overcome the three defects of the state of nature. These are a lack of standards for right and wrong, lack of an impartial judge to apply the standard, and lack of an enforcing power. This is not just the purpose of government, but also the full extent of the power of that government.
Locke supposes that no man would give up his freedom and independent power with an intent of making his condition worse. Therefore, the power of the society can never extend beyond the scope of securing the common good. Thus, the government is obliged to secure everyone's property, by providing against the three defects of the state of nature. Furthermore, anyone who has the power of any commonwealth is bound to govern by established laws known to everyone. There may be no arbitrary decrees at all.
Controversies are to be decided by indifferent and upright judges, according to law. Further, the government is to use the force of the community only to enforce the known laws at home. It is also expected to use the force of the community to secure the community against foreign injuries and invasions. All of this is to be directed only to the public good and no other purpose.
Locke argues forcibly against the arbitrary use of power by decree. He makes four points concerning the extent of legislative power. First, it must govern by established laws. Second, it must make laws who's end is the public good. Third, there can be no taxation without representation. Fourth, the legislative cannot transfer its lawmaking power.
He also addresses the separation of powers to insure against the temptation which is inherent in massed power. In Lock's view, the legislative would have the power to make law and the executive would have the power to enforce law. Then, although the domestic executive powers and the foreign executive powers are distinct, he puts them both in a single office. This because they both require the force of society. We can notice that these concepts later found their way into our American System.
Now to the subordination of power, Locke assigns the supreme power to the people who first created the government by contract, since the legislative is only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends. The people then, retain the supreme power to remove or alter it. They can do this whenever they find that the legislative has acted contrary to the trust assigned them. Whenever a trust is neglected or betrayed, it is forfeited back to those who assigned it.
Then Locke carries this argument to its logical conclusion. He points out that, in some cases, rebellion is the only means available to restore the initial contract. Anyone who uses force without right and without law is in a state of war with those against who he has acted. In that case, all former ties and rights cease to exist. Everyone has a right to defend himself against such an aggressor. People have a right to resist the king. In1776, this is exactly what the thirteen colonies decided must be done.
Next time, I will hop across the channel to France and take
a look at the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment.
Back to The Evolution of
Democracy.
|
|
|
|