POLITICAL IDEAS OF JOHN LOCKE

I. Introduction
"Without Shaftesbury, Locke would not have been Locke at all." [Laslett]
John Locke's political ideology developed in conflict with and under the
influence of others'. Just as the Earl of Shaftesbury had brought about an
almost entire reversal in Locke's thinking 1, his philosophy was much
defined in the light of how he criticised Filmer, or drew from Hooker.
His ideology was influenced by the politics of the time, and the Whigs
who were his mentors and his friends. Locke lived through the bloodless
Glorious Revolution, which influenced how he viewed basic human nature.
He advocated limited monarchy, at a time when England saw the abolition
of monarchy by Oliver Cromwell and the Bill of Rights which limited the
power of the king.

II. The Social Contract

Inherent in the state of nature, is liberty and equality, but there are also
three unsatisfied wants: want for settled law, for an impartial judge, and
for an executive authority to enforce just decisions 2. The state of nature
was thus Locke's metaphor to explain the importance of authority in a civil
society. To protect themselves and their property, individuals partially
surrendered their natural rights, and made the "original compact" to
incorporate themselves into a "political society," which is all that the
compact needs.
The ability of individuals to unite, incorporate themselves into society,
and follow majority rule this was the basis of "any lawful Government in
the world," according to Locke. He saw political authority as a trust, not a
free gift. It belonged to the community as a whole, and were it to be
abused, the community had the right to take remedial measures. Central
to the social contract, is each individual's consent to be bound by it: this is
the basis of government. Thus a "good State" would be formed, an
SUBRATA MUKHERJEE AND SUSHILA RAMASWAMY , A History of Political Thought Plato
to Marx, Chapter 6, 194
2
ibid, 200
1

alternative to the unstable political absolutism that would arise if

individuals continued to live in the state of nature.
Locke bases this on his idea that human nature as innately peaceful,
when in fact few revolutions are as bloodless as the Glorious Revolution.
The concept of majority rule itself implies that since no socio-political
decision can be unanimous, the majority opinion will always override the
minority. This premise is myopic in light of modern minority politics, where
women are represented in Parliament and activists have gone far in
establishing LGBT rights.

III. Natural Rights and Property

The three fundamental rights are the rights to life, liberty and property 3.
Locke did not see them as products of society, but inherent to the
individual. It originates from the state of nature, where an individual held
everything, even life, in trust for God. Natural rights originate from the
duty of self-preservation, which implied there could be no strife; personal
independence and freedom were inviolate rights of the individual. While
no person has the right to take his own life or that of others, Locke,
however, condoned punishment for those who violated natural laws.
In Two Treatises, Locke, the individualist, believed in the private right to
common heritage ["property is without express compact of all the
commoners."4] In the natural state, everyone had the right to subsist from
natural resources, so in a sense property was common. [Sabine proposes
that this theory originates from Locke's belief in the superiority of
agricultural productivity, which in turn is linked to a higher standard of
life5.] But it is human labour that distinguishes private ownership from
common property. When labour, which belongs unquestionably to the
labourer, is used for production, the labourer infuses a part of himself into
the process, and thus is entitled to the fruits of it. Even though the world is
common to all, the individual has a limited right to appropriation.

AMAL KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY, Western Political Thought, Chapter 5, 130

JOHN LOCKE, Of Civil Government [Book II], section 25

A History of Political Theory, Chapter 27, 486-487

Macpherson criticises this as "justification of the natural right to unequal

property," Locke as a "bourgeois apologist 6." However, Locke emerged
during a time of predominantly agrarian production, when industrial
society did not distinctly create class differences. Moreover, he does not
advocate "unequal property" as much he does the individual's right to
what he has earned through his own labour. "Property" had the broadest
connotations of representing a part of the individual himself.

IV. Limited Monarchy [the Right to Revolt]

The direction of Locke's political ideology was naturally influenced by his
reaction to contemporary politics. A "Whig" [parliamentarian] himself, he
advocated the limited monarchy form of government. Like Hobbes, he
believed that the individual needs to be governed, exchanging natural
[absolute] freedom for security. It was the powers of this government that
was contentious. Hobbes argued that power distribution among several
authority figures would leave them constantly at war, creating a situation
of abuse of power under which the common man would suffer. An
absolutist, he advocated a single monarch, vested with the power to rule,
and also moral obligations that would keep a check on the former.
Conversely, Locke argued against absolutism, that under the rule of one
sovereign, the governed would be exploited. The individual should not be
subjected to governance without his own consent, not even for what
Hobbes called "public safety." Instead, Locke advocated limited monarchy,
and sharing of power with the Parliament.
The Second Treatise describes illegitimate civil government. "English
society and English government are two different things. The second
exists for the well-being of the first7." Since government is based on each
individual's consent, it cannot continue existing if it no longer protects the
right to life, liberty and property. By violating fundamental rights, the
government forfeits its right to rule8. Locke defends the moral right to
revolt. He projects the illegitimate civil government as a danger to it
6

MUKHERJEE

GEORGE H. SABINE, A History of Political Theory, Chapter 27, 493

ibid, 494

AND

RAMASWAMY, supra note 1, 210

subjects, giving the latter the right of self-preservation and allowance to

eliminate the former. But he maintains the heinousness of regicide, and
allows it only under extenuating circumstances. Political change does not
presuppose a social change 9; the social contract remains distinct from the
political.
Locke's arguments were heralded as slogans during the American
Revolution of 1666; "no taxation without representation" typifies his
concept of how government should work. The right of an individual to
revolt against an oppressive government was upheld and quoted as often
as Rousseau to initiate the French Revolution of the eighteenth century.
These arguments have persisted to even the present day, where Locke's
system of government is probably the most accepted system: democracy.

V. Pioneer of Liberalism
The Lockeian social contract largely founded European liberalism, through
its three central ideas10. The first is the emphasis on consent in politics.
Consent is essential to the establishment of the Government. But while
Hobbes disregarded any further role of consent, Locke did not agree that
the government had the right to force its subjects' obedience to further
public safety. Force and consent cannot be reconciled. When the
government is no longer able to protect the interests of the people, it can
be dissolved by the people. The second is that the government does not
have unlimited power. As long as it performs its purpose, it has the right to
be obeyed by its subjects; thus the government is limited by the duties
arising out of it purpose. The third is the importance of the individual.
Locke does not undermine the importance of the government, but
underlines that it derives its power from the individual. The importance of
the government is not to be secured at the expense of the individual,
whose interests it was created to safeguard. He echoes eighteenth-century
Whig liberalism, which sees the government as responsible for creating a

9
10

MUKHOPADHYAY, supra note 3, 129

ibid, 129-130

balance between the church and the crown on one side, and the
commonality on the other.
While many socialists had preceded Marx, there had been no liberalists
before Locke. The relevance of his position on natural rights, limited
government, religious tolerance, executive accountability and the rule of
law, were not limited to contemporary politics; they characterise, to a
great extent, modern liberal politics as well.

VI. Conclusion
The three Social Contractarians, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean
Jacques Rousseau, differed in their presentation of the state of nature, the
nature of the Contract, and the nature of the State, because of the
difference in their fundamental ideology.
Hobbes advocated absolutism of the State. He saw human nature as
"nasty, brutish and short," and that individuals need to be governed to
exist peacefully. The government can be established with the consent of
the people, but in matters of rule, the government may impose measures
without the consent of its subjects, in furtherance of their safety and
welfare. But in the Leviathan, he gave the sovereign absolute power, even
to curtail fundamental rights. The individual who had entered into a
contract with the sovereign, was thereby also prevented from breaking
away from that subjection11.
Locke held personal independence to be supreme. Individual consent,
which is the basis of establishing a government, remains relevant
throughout its rule. If the ruler were to violate the individual's fundamental
rights, his authority would become ipso facto void. The community would
have a moral basis for overthrowing the government and establishing a
new one in its place. Through his ideology, he presents himself as a
libertarian, upholding the inviolate liberty of the individual above even the
State.

11

MUKHERJEE

AND

RAMASWAMY, supra note 1, 179

Consent was the basis of society, according to Rousseau, but he

emphasised the importance of the community 12. He argued that the
community, which was created to further moral autonomy, brought about
a moral transformation in the individual. Rousseau, the populist, saw the
General Will as the source of laws.

12

ibid, 224