Sunday 2 March 2014

JOHN LOCKE’S ADVOCACY FOR SEPARATION OF POWER and JOHN LOCKE’S IDEA OF REVOLUTION


Introduction
John Locke (1632–1704) is among the most influential political philosophers of the modern period. In the Two Treatises of Government, he defended the claim that men are by nature free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. He argued that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments. Locke is thus also important for his defense of the right of revolution. Locke also defends the principle of majority rule and the separation of legislative and executive powers. In the Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke denied that coercion should be used to bring people to (what the ruler believes is) the true religion and also denied that churches should have any coercive power over their members. Locke elaborated on these themes in his later political writings, such as the Second Letter on Toleration and Third Letter on Toleration. This paper will seek to explain John Locke’s advocacy for governmental separation of powers and the belief that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances

A BIOGRAPHY OF JOHN LOCKE (1632-1704)
John Locke was born on August 29th, 1632 in England and lived to became one of the most influential people in England and, perhaps, one of the most influential people of the 17th century. Before his death on October 28th, 1704 he would earn the title as the Father of liberal philosophy. His ideas would also be used as a keystone for the revolution of the North American colonies from England.
Locke had many prominent friends who were nobles in government and also highly respected scholars of the times. He was good friends with the Earl of Shaftesbury and he was given government jobs which he served with Shaftesbury.
Locke lived in France for a while and returned to troubled times in England. In 1679 his friend the Earl was tried for treason. Although Shaftesbury was acquitted, the Earl decided to flee England anyway to escape further persecution. He fled to Holland where William and Mary ruled but had some claim to the English throne. Owing to his close association with the Earl, Locke also fled to Holland in 1683. He returned to England in about 1688 when William and Mary were invited to retake the reign of England in what historians call the Bloodless Revolution. Eventually Locke returned to Oates in Essex where he retired. He lived there until his death in 1704.

TWO TREATISES OF GOVERNMENT
In February 1690 the book entitled Two Treatises of Government was published. In these treatises Locke considers the origins of civil government.  As population increases in relation to the supply of land rules are needed beyond those which the moral law or law of nature supplies. Locke suggests that whilst the moral law is always valid it is not always kept; this gives rise to problems of social order. In a state of nature all men equally take upon themselves the right to punish transgressors. What might be called civil societies originate where, for the better administration of the law in relation to the protection of life, liberty, and property, men agree to delegate this function to certain officers. Thus the government of civil societies is initiated by an implicit, but effective, "social contract".
  Locke saw the origin of civil society by such agreement as inevitably involving the associated consent to be ruled, in many things, by the majority opinion within the society. Locke did however consider that certain "natural rights" were not prejudiced by the formation of the civil society and should remain inviolable.
  To better avoid the emergence of tyranny through legislation Locke advocated a system of checks and balances in government. He saw governance as being comprised of three aspects, Legislative, Executive, and Federative.
  Locke in his Two Treatises of Government sets out to dismantle the theory of divine right of kin. In this work Locke argues that sovereignty is not vested by divine right in the royal state but rests with the people. States power can be supreme but only, in Locke's view, if it operates within the bounds of civil and "natural" law.
  Locke saw the powers as such government as being limited, such powers also involve reciprocal obligations. Governments moreover can be modified or rescinded by the authority which conferred them. Locke maintained, in his Two Treatises of Government published just as it was just after an English revolution (for which Locke was to be something of an apologist), that revolution was not only a right but was often an effective obligation where states denied the operation of civil and natural law.

JOHN LOCKE’S ADVOCACY FOR SEPARATION OF POWER
In Locke's conception, a proper government exercises three distinct and separate powers, the legislative, executive, and federative power of the commonwealth.
The first power of government to be established is the legislative power, which is that which has a right to direct how the force of the commonwealth shall be employed for preserving the community and the members of it. There are several conditions by which it maintains its legitimacy. First, those exercising the legislative power are chosen and appointed by the citizens. Second, they govern by "declared and received laws [i.e., the rule of law], and not by extemporary dictates. Third, these laws are only interpreted by known authorized judges. Forth, it cannot take from any man any part of his property [i.e., collect taxes] without his own consent [i.e., taxation without representation], since the preservation of property is the end of government. And finally, it cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands, for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others.
Once the legislative force creates laws, there arises the need of an executive power which should see to the execution of the laws.  For the legislators not being able to foresee and provide by laws for all that may be useful to the community till the legislative can conveniently be assembled to provide for it the good of society requires that several things should be left to the discretion of him that has the executive power.
The third power of government, the federative, arises from the fact that, although in relation to one another the members of the commonwealth are governed by the laws the society, yet the whole community is one body in the state of Nature in respect of all other states or persons out of its community, i.e., all commonwealths are in the state of Nature one with another. Out of this consideration, the power of the federative branch, which one may call natural, because it is that which answers to the power every man naturally had before he entered into society contains the power of war and peace, leagues and alliances, and all the transactions with all persons and communities without the commonwealth.

JOHN LOCKE’S IDEA OF REVOLUTION
John Locke believes that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances. Men leave the state of nature and establish a civil society when they voluntarily give their natural right to self defense to a common public authority (Kane, 1995). They do this in order to acquire mutual protection of their lives, liberties, and estates from those who in a state of nature would be of danger to them, by means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force in under established, settled, known law, interpreted by an indifferent judge, with the power to support the sentence when right.
Thus underlying the laws of the government are the powers granted to individuals in the state of nature by the law of nature, transferred by their common consent to a government authority. The obligations of the law of Nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have by human laws, known penalties annexed to them to enforce their obligation. Locke maintains that the proper function of law is to create, rather than restrict, personal freedom, that the law of a government is not an instrument to restrain the freedom of a rational being, but is a framework required to preserve and enlarge it. For where there is no law, there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law. In other words, law, in Locke's view, exists only to stop the deeds of those who would transgress on another's freedom, for the purpose of preserving that freedom. Such laws are not arbitrary, since nobody can transfer to another [i.e., the government] more power than he has in himself.
Such a government is legitimate, because its powers derive from its citizens, who give their consent to its formation. By agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it, such men have given their express consent to the government of such a community. In addition, any man who is born within a particular government and accepts the protection provided by it, thereby gives a tacit consent as to the legitimacy of that government.(Gordon, 1967).
The last major topic treated by Locke in the Second Treatise is the right of the citizens to revolt against tyrannies, i.e., governments wherein the governor makes not the law, but his will, the rule, and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion. Such a ruler ceases in that to be a magistrate, and acting without authority may be opposed, as any other man who by force invades the right of another. Thus it is plain that shaking off a power which force, and not right, hath set over any one, thought it hath the name of rebellion, yet is no offence before God. Prince's owe subjection to the laws of God and Nature, so that the use of force without authority [i.e., the authority deriving from the law of nature] always puts him that uses it into a state of war as the aggressor, and renders him liable to be treated accordingly.  By this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and by the establishment of a new legislative provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society. In short, the people are absolved from obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties because self-defense is a part of the law of Nature.
John Locke encouraged governmental checks and balances. He also viewed political revolution as not only a right but also in some circumstances and obligation. In the United States, those ideas helped inspire and form the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. (Aaron, 1937)
Conclusion
The separation of power john locks advocates have made it possible for obligation in revolution to be possible this is why separation of powers is the key to the workings of American government, no democratic system exists with an absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of powers. Governmental powers and responsibilities intentionally overlap; they are too complex and interrelated to be neatly compartmentalized. As a result, there is an inherent measure of competition and conflict among the branches of government. Throughout American history, there also has been an ebb and flow of preeminence among the governmental branches. Such experiences suggest that where power resides is part of an evolutionary process. Although some explanations of the right of revolution leave open the possibility of its exercise as an individual right, it was clearly understood to be a collective right under English constitutional and political theory.

Reference
Aaron, Richard I. 1937 (rpt. 1955). John Locke. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Appadorai, A. (2003). The Substance of politics. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Chaturvedi, A. K. (2006). Dictionary of Political Science. New Delhi: Academic Publishers.
Chappell, Vere, ed. 1995. The Cambridge Companion to Locke. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Clapp, James Gordon, 1967. "John Locke." In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Ed. Paul Edwards. New York: MacMillan and Free Press. Vol. 4.
Kane, R. H. 1995. "Socinianism."In Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.Ed. Robert Audi.Cambridge University Press.
Locke, John, 1956. The Second Treatise of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration. Ed. with intro.by J. W. Gough. New York: MacMillan..

No comments:

Post a Comment