Locke’s state is limited and constitutional. It exercises power based on the consent of the people as a trust implied in the social contract. Government is bound by the terms of the contract to safeguard and protect the natural rights—right to life liberty and property, for which it has been instituted. This means, legitimacy of the authority of government depends on people’s consent, this consent is available so far as the government fulfils the terms of the contract of protecting the natural rights. Failing this, the government loses it basis of legitimacy and the consent is withdrawn. Simply, this is the breakdown of the consent and removal of the government.
Arguably, Locke talks about two contracts, one constituting the civil society and another instituting the government. Unlike Hobbes, but like Althusius, Locke differentiates between society and government. The revolution or withdrawal of consent is against the government and not the society, as Hobbes suggested. As a result, government is deposed, changed and replaced without leading to a breakdown of the civil society. Locke’s scheme of resistance provides for political revolution and not social revolution, i.e., change in political set-up not social structure. An authority is legitimately overthrown when it exceeds its limit. The people possess the supreme power to remove or alter the government when it is contrary to the trust reposed in it. This is a clear statement of authority flowing from the people and the government being the handmade of the people. It is logical that Locke talks of limited political obligation.
Locke attributes the cause of revolution to oppression. He says, ‘there is one thing only which gathers people into seditious commotions, and that is oppression.’39 This happens when government violates the contract and is no more based on consent and has no authority but uses force. For Locke, violation of natural rights and oppression and mistreatment of people are causes for revolution. As Sabine suggests, ‘Locke’s purpose was to defend moral right of revolution; hence at the end of his second treatise, he discussed the right to resist tyranny.’40 Locke declared that ‘true remedy of force without authority is to oppose force to it.’ Locke by defending the moral right to resist government, suggests that society and its well-being are prime and government must subscribe to it, failing which revolution is imminent. However, Locke is cautious in prescribing resistance against tyranny and, as Wayper says, he does not want revolution to be act of a minority. If this happens, it is feared that a handful of ambitious minority may destroy a well-framed constitution. Locke is true to his majority principle of decision-making, which he prescribes for all decisions to be taken after the social contract has been entered into. The social contract is a covenant arrived at unanimously. Along with consent, majority principle that Locke prescribed has become an important concept in representative democracy. Locke’s defence of resistance and revolution was a clear-cut defence of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and a statement of limited political obligation.
Leave a Reply