Lockes View of the Justifiability of Political Revolution

John Locke was born in a time of political upheaval when The Civil War had just broken out in Britain. He later lamented in his own words, I no sooner perceived myself in the world than I found myself in a storm. He was a brilliant student who excelled in his studies and this led to his acceptance to Christ Church Oxford. During his time at the university, the official courses never really interested him much he would have preferred to learn philosophy from Descartes as opposed to Aristotle.His early life was rather nondescript, until he published The Two treatises of Government.

The Two Treatises of Government
The Two treaties of Government was written by Locke himself and its subsequent publication in 1869 created a political storm. His works were published anonymously to counter the patriarchal ideology which was being pushed through by Robert Filmer. The First Treatise attacked the core beliefs of partriachilsm while the Second Treatise, the more controversial one, outlined a theory of political or civil society based on natural rights and contract theory. This mode of thinking and the ideologies being put forward by Locke went against the norms and this posed a threat to those in power its quite understandable why he chose to publish his work unanimously. Once The Two Treatises were in the public domain, they drew varied opinions with some harsh critics sharing Filmers views, vehemently opposing it and even going to great lengths to discredit it.

In other quarters, the Two Treatises were widely accepted with some analysts adding that its core beliefs on freedom and equality of each mankind sowed the seeds for the American and French Revolution. John Locke was probably strongly influenced by the Exclusion Crisis which sought to prevent the ascension of James the 2nd to the throne of England when he crafted his Two Treatises.
The Exclusion Crisis lasted from 1678 to 1681. The source of contention was the prevention of James II from becoming the next king after his brother because he, James II, was catholic. Their neighbors France were being ruled by an authoritative catholic king and the proponents of the Exclusion Bill feared a similar leadership will befall England. Their efforts were unsuccessful and James II later became the King of England.  However he was later overthrown in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 by William of Orange who then became William III of England. The reign of James II was characterized by Catholicism playing a major part in the monarchs functions. William III sought to change that and his reign brought the English parliamentary democracy to the forefront his monarch also held absolute power but the Bill of Rights also proved to be one of the most important documents in the political history of Britain. Its in the backdrop of the Exclusion Crisis and the Glorious Revolution that John Locke used as a platform for writing this work.  In the preface to the Two Treatises, Locke states that purpose of writing this work were to justify William III ascension to the throne. The 2nd Treatise will be the focus of this paper since it covers a citizens expectations when he joins a political society

Political Revolution
The Second Treatise took a different tone as compared to its predecessor. It focused on a situation Locke described as the state of nature. This Treatise displayed certain similar characteristics to Thomas Hobbes state of war of every man against every man. Locke later vehemently denied ever reading or referring to Hobbes work. In the state of nature, Locke argued that all men are created equal in the state of nature by God. He later delved into the creation of civilization and property with regards to the equality of mankind. He said that legitimate governments are those that have been granted authority by its people to rule those that rule without the peoples consent should therefore be rightly overthrown.
In short, the people are under no obligation to obey one another but are each themselves judge of what the law of nature requires. The Second Treatise looked at slavery, property, representative government and the right of revolution. The state of nature of was initially hypothesized by Thomas Hobbes in 17th century England but Lockes theory was a bit different. Drawing from the conclusions of the First Treatise where he concluded that there is no divinely ordained monarch over the entire world, he further added in the Second Treatise that the Natural state of mankind is anarchic. Locke explained at great lengths that the state of anarchy or mayhem amongst men will exist in a society that has no legitimate government. Anarchy will present itself because every person is free to do whatever pleases him and no one person has the authority to dictate policy to someone else or pronounce justice in disputed cases. The specifics of this law may be unclear but each may be misinterpreted in its own case however, the lack of any commonly recognized, impartial judge, means that there is no way to correct these misapplications. Such anarchic behavior is attributed to the equality of all men in the eyes of God and the law of nature itself.

However, if man is used to enjoying this freedom where he can do as he pleases and he is answerable to no one, then why will he choose to give this up and allow to be controlled by another power (a legitimate government) The answer is, according to Locke while the freedoms enjoyed in an anarchic society do appear appealing, they also come with a certain level of uncertainty man has no control over the actions and reactions of his fellow beings. He is constantly exposed to the invasion of others. Therefore, he will be more inclined to abandon this unsafe and insecure environment and join a united society which shares the same ideals and beliefs, and preserves life. This of course requires him to abandon certain freedoms but it is a risk he is willing to take.

Conclusion
Locke summarized this point by saying that It is to avoid the state of war that often occurs in the state of nature and to protect their private property that men enter into civil or political society. Furthermore if this civil or political society fractures, then man will return to his anarchic past. It is in this anarchic state again that he will seek to create or find another civil or political society. What comes out clearly in this theory is people will choose to be governed by a ruler as long as he fulfils the promises he made. However, if he breaks from the agreed covenant with the people, then the population will rise against him in an effort to restore the civil freedoms they are used to enjoying. This will only happen through replacing him with someone else not through an infinite state of tyranny. In short, it justifies the right to overthrow an illegitimate government.

0 comments:

Post a Comment