John Locke Second Treatise of Government - Book Report/Review Example

John Locke Second Treatise of Government John Locke's two Treatises of Government were published (1690) in the wake of Britain's Glorious Revolutionof 1688. Its immediate purpose was to justify the ouster of King James II as monarch, in favor of King William and Queen Mary of Orange. Locke sought to refute the theories of the Divine Right of Kings, of which the well-known proponent was Sir Robert Filmer. Locke's writings also put brakes on the idea of the state as a Leviathan (literally meaning a 'whale'); in this context it refers to the all-powerful state. Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, which had been published in 1651, argued for the necessity of having an absolutist government. Locke's The Second Treatise of Government also became a book that had far reaching influence, providing the basis for the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence of the United States. In the Second Treatise, Locke stipulates that there should be limits to government, in order to ensure that it does not misuse power and always works for the welfare of the governed. Locke starts by describing the origin of the state. He says that people initially lived in a "state of nature".1 This state was one in which they were all equal and free. This freedom, however, did not give people the license to trouble others as they were bound by a natural, moral law not to impinge upon the rights of others. In case a person committed a crime, under natural law, the offender could be dealt a punishment to fit his crime. Locke differentiates between the state of nature and the state of war, thus: "Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature. But force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war" 2 Locke uses the term 'war' to refer to conflict. It is to avoid such a state of war that people leave the state of nature and create a civil or political state. The function of the state and the government is to protect people from a state of war. Therefore, if the government is not able to perform this function, or if the government itself is tyrannical, then people have the right to overthrow it, as its continuation becomes unjustified. The fundamental arguments given by Locke, against the rights of a monarch to rule a country without the express approval of the people, and only in their interests, are based on his interpretation of religion and morals. Since, Adam, the first man to inhabit the earth according to Christian belief, was not given complete sway over the world by God, neither do his children have that authority. Besides, identifying Adam's heirs today, is an impossible task.3 This argument is a reiteration of the one that Locke stated in his First Treatise. Thus natural liberty is defined by Locke as a person's right to be ruled solely by the laws of nature, and social liberty his right to be governed by a power established by his consent and for his benefit. From this, it follows that slavery is not lawful. However Locke says that slavery may be justified only in the case of a state of war, when a lawful conqueror takes captives. Here, we must understand that every thinker functions in the environment in which he is placed, and would be influenced by actual events happening during his lifetime. However, while making this observation on slavery, Locke adds that even in Exodus, the Jews were not slaves, they simply sold themselves into drudgery. Their masters did not have control over their lives and hence liberty.4 Locke's views on property5 form an important part of his political ideas. He refers to religious sources (the Bible) and adds his own logic to discuss the origins of private property, and to justify his viewpoint. He says that the earth was given as common property by God to human beings. When a person added labor to the property, this common property became private property. If I plucked an apple, it became mine because I had added labor to it. If I tilled the land or built a house, they became mine because my labor had gone into it. Since goods were of a perishable nature, the extent of private property I could have was limited by the extent to which I myself could consume (how many apples I could eat etc.). I had no right to let things go to waste. However, money was a means whereby I could store value. I could sell the excess of apples I had for money, and keep this money, which never spoilt. In this manner, Locke justifies the concept of unlimited private property. He states that private property can be limited only to the extent to which I had a command over money. The state existed to protect me and my private property from the incursions of others. Although Locke talks of the power of the community-the state and the ruler exits because the community wills them to-he does not necessarily assume that democracy is the best form of government. Government can be in the form of an oligarchy or monarchy, the exact structure depending on what the people want.6 Locke advocates a separation of powers between the executive and legislature7 to prevent concentration of power and its probable misuse. It is this idea, later discussed at length by Montesquieu, which forms the basis for the US constitution, which enshrines the principle of separation of powers. In chapter 14 of The Second Treatise, Locke talks of prerogative. He defines this as the "power to act according to discretion, for the public good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it." 8 In every society there would arise situations which were not envisaged by the legislature, and for which laws have not been formulated. Each time such a situation occurs the king would have to exercise his executive prerogative-his good judgment-to act as he thinks right. Executive prerogative is to be exercised only in the public interest and not for self-aggrandizement. Prerogative is a trust placed by people in the executive. At another place, Locke also states that although all laws stem from executive prerogative, the executive by being beholden to the laws passed by the legislature is in no way sacrificing his prerogative. Laws can never curb the power of the executive, but are framed only in the interest of public welfare. A good leader will automatically be allowed a great deal of prerogative by his people, because his actions and judgments would always be in the interests of the people. However, the danger arises, when a ruler is replaced by an heir, who could have tyrannical tendencies and misuses his prerogative-the trust placed in him by the people. In such an event the people have a right to revoke the trust placed by them in their monarch. Now, Locke's views may seem to us contradictory and confused at times. He talks of the ultimate power of the people; he also talks of the prerogative of the monarch. Logically speaking, yes-the ideas ARE contradictory. But we must realize that in the real world-the political world-contradictions must be accepted. By accepting contradiction, we are not taking the easy way out, we are only acknowledging the universal truth that reality does not come in deep black or pure white-reality is many hued. It is necessary to curb excessive concentration of executive power, as absolute power does corrupt absolutely. However, it is also necessary to give the executive sufficient power in order that he may be able to perform his duties creditably. A ruler cannot be running for every bit of 'unlegislated' law to seek ratification of his legislature. This would be impractical. Locke's place in political theory must be considered in the light of the political developments of his time. It was an era of monarchy. But it was an era when people were tiring of tyrants. Democracy as we know it today, did not exist. (Athenian democracy was a thing of centuries' past, and had been tried only at the level of the city-state.) Locke represents a stage in the evolution of political systems from monarchy to democracy. His first stating of the theory of separation of powers, as mentioned earlier, gained further legitimacy in the writings of other political theorists, notably Montesquieu. What Britain had achieved without bloodshed in 1688-the overthrow of a despotic monarch-was achieved by other countries like France (1789) and USSR or the former federation of the Russian states (1917) after considerable bloodshed. The US constitution, which set up the first modern democracy is based completely on the idea of separation of powers. Britain herself has today evolved a system of democracy, without getting rid of the monarchy, although the monarchy is only a figurehead. Even in a democracy-the idea of prerogative-exits. A legislator, or anyone who holds a public office is given special powers and privileges (prerogative) to assist him in the efficient completion of his tasks. This prerogative is held as a trust. Democracy, however, has the benefit of ratification of the powers of rulers by the people at regular intervals, which ratification is carried on in the form of elections. Works Cited Locke, John The Second Treatise of Civil Government, 1690, updated 27th May 2002, retrieved 28th Nov 2007 < http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm> Read More