John Locke (1632–1704), an English thinker and social contractualist, is not identified with the theory of absolute sovereignty. His understanding of the social contract and the state of nature led Locke to formulate a theory of sovereignty which was different from that of Hobbes. In his Two Treatises of Government (1690) he formulated his theory of social contract and natural rights, the understanding of which informed his formulation of a limited sovereignty.
For Locke, the state of nature is not as chaotic and licentious as Hobbes had formulated. According to Wayper, ‘The state of nature is a state in which men are equal and free to act as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature.’17 There are natural rights of life, liberty and property in the state of nature and also acknowledged duties. It is not free for all conditions, as Hobbes thought—rather, there is an absence of authority to interpret, execute and arbitrate the law of nature. It is not a state of war, but one where peace is not secured. This formulation of the state of nature by Locke leaves unsatisfied three important wants—the want of an ‘established, settled, known law’, a ‘known and indifferent judge’ and an ‘executive power to enforce such decisions.’ The social contract between individuals aims at creating a State which fulfils these gaps. Locke provides three organs for the State—the legislative, which he calls ‘the supreme power of the commonwealth’, the executive, which includes judicial powers as well and the federative, the power to make treaties.
For Locke, the social contract is necessitated by the need to preserve the three natural rights of life, liberty and property. This requires an instituting authority to fill the gap created by the three unsatisfied wants already mentioned. The very nature of transition from a state of nature requires the formulation of not only a theory of limited sovereignty but also of limited government. As such, the people may retain supreme power and the government is required to act only as a trust of the people for preserving those inalienable rights for which they escape the state of nature. This, however, requires the constitution of a civil society as well as the institution of government as a trust. However, as Sabine says, ‘Locke is nowhere clear as to what precisely does arise by the “original compact.” Is it society itself or only government?’18 Though it is not clear in Locke whether he refers to a second contract, some commentators like Sabine and Wayper maintain that Locke tacitly assumes a second contract whereby the government is given limited power by the people, as a trust. As Locke formulated a limited and specific contract where individuals surrender only certain natural rights, the sovereign accordingly has to be limited in its powers.
Instead of using the word ‘sovereignty’, Locke used the term ‘supreme power’ and argued that it resided in the people.19 Furthermore, his ideas about a limited transfer of rights to the government and the government as trust, the inviolability of natural rights (particularly the right to property without the consent of the people where consent stands for ‘majority vote’), all point towards a theory of limited political obligation, limited sovereignty and a limited state. Thus, his is not a theory of absolute, unlimited, unrestrained sovereignty but a theory of constitutional power in the limited by certain inalienable rights. In case the State violates the terms of this contract or betrays its trust, Locke gives people right to revolt, though the same should never be an act of the minority. Revolt for him does not lead to the dissolution of the State—at most, only a change of government.
Leave a Reply