AN EXPOSITION OF JOHN LOCKE'S CONCEPT OF GOOD GOVERNANCE

BY

ALEXANDER, BELLO IME

AK16/ART/PHL/006

APRIL, 2021
 AN EXPOSITION OF JOHN LOCKE'S CONCEPT OF GOOD GOVERNANCE

BY

ALEXANDER, BELLO IME

AK16/ART/PHL/006

BEING AN ORIGINAL LONG ESSAY SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, AKWA IBOM
STATE UNIVERSITY, IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARD OF BACHELOR OF
ARTS (B.A. Hons.) DEGREE IN PHILOSOPHY

APRIL, 2021
 DECLARATION

I declare that this long essay is an original research carried out by me, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of Bachelor of Arts Degree (B.A. Hons.) in Philosophy. All errors therein are,
therefore, my responsibility.

ALEXANDER, BELLO IME SIGNATURE:.......................

AK16/ART/PHL/006 DATE:..................................
 CERTIFICATION

We certify that this long essay entitled An Exposition of John Locke's Concept of Good Governance
submitted to the Department of Philosophy, Akwa Ibom State University, for award of Bachelor of Arts
Degree (B.A. Hons) in Philosophy, is a record of original research carried out by ALEXANDER, BELLO IME
with the Registration Number Ak16/ART/PHL/006, as declared.

DR. OBIOHA, PRECIOUS U. SIGNATURE:...................

(SUPERVISOR) DATE:..............................

DR. UMOTONG, INIOBONG D. (Assoc. Prof.) SIGNATURE:....................

(HEAD OF DEPARTMENT) DATE:...............................

PROF. UDUIGWOMEN, ANDREW F. SIGNATURE:...................

(EXTERNAL EXAMINER) DATE:.............................

 DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to God Almighty for His sufficient mercies, kindness and love towards me, my
parents Elder and Mrs. Ime Alexander Akpan and to all who seek to know more about good governance.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Standing on the words of Jean-Paul Sartre, that man’s mundanity is that of his existence with others, I
wish to say in black and white that the success of this Project was by no means a solo effort from myself
alone, others with whom I have become one in the different aspects of existence really contributed their
own quota as well.

My unalloyed gratitude goes first to the giver of my being- the Almighty God who has been sustaining
me with every necessary grace, throughout my philosophical escapades in Akwa Ibom State University.
Really, you that knoweth and searcheth man’s heart knoweth exactly the deep feeling of my love for
you.

I cannot rhapsodize enough on the proficiency and efficiency of my ebullient supervisor, Dr. Precious
Obioha. His painstaking and critical attitude which he exhausted while going through this work worths
immortalizing. Not forgetting my amiable lecturers; Head of Philosophy Department, Associate Prof.
Iniobong Umotong, Dr. Inameti Udo, Dr. Christopher Udofia, Dr. Otto Dennis, Very Rev. Mosses Udoh
Ph.D and my former lecturers; Rev. Fr. Christopher Etukudo Ph.D and Associate Prof. Emmanuel
Udokang, who have aided in my four years of schorlarly formation. am abundantly grateful.

My unreserved respect in its entirety goes to my family for their moral, spiritual and financial supports
towards me which continuously flows like a river. Calling to mind hugely, is my Dad Elder Ime Alexander
Akpan and my lovely Mum Mrs. Blessed Mother-Eno Ime, an epitome of motherhood. Thanks mum for
your tireless and uncompromising assistance. Not forgetting my siblings who have been supportive all
these years- Mr. and Mrs. Ndimo Alexander, Etimbuk, Akaniyene and Emediong. You people are really
great, for with you and for you I am in the process of realizing my vital force. Keeping in mind also with a
basket full of thanks to my landlord Dr. Oku Jacob King. To Comrade Harrison Ndifreke, who stood by me
in time of need. I will always remain in your debts while you remain in my prayers.

Finally, to all whom for want of space and time I did not mention their names, I claim this space to say a
million thanks. May God reward you abundantly on my behalf.
TABLE OF CONTENT

Declaration

Certification

Dedication

Acknowledgements

Abstract

Table of Contents

CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

1.2 Statement of the Problem

1.3. Objective of the Study

1.4. Significant of the Study

1.5. Method of the Study

1.6. Scope of the Study

1.7 Definition of Key Terms

CHAPTER TWO - LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER THREE - GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF JOHN LOCKE'S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

3.0 Introduction

3.1 Brief Biographical sketch of John Locke

3.2. Locke's State of Nature

3.3 Locke's State of War

3.4. Locke's Social Contract

3.5. Locke's Concept of Separation of power

3.5.1 The Legislative Power

3.5.2. The Executive Power

3.5.3. The Federative Power

3.6. John Locke and the rule of Law

3.7. John Locke's Concept of Political Authority

CHAPTER FOUR - EXPOSITION OF JOHN LOCKE'S CONCEPT OF GOOD GOVERNANCE

4.0 Introduction

4.1. Locke's Idea of good governance

4.2. Locke's Idea of check and balance

4.3 Locke's Idea of Government as the servant of the people.

CHAPTER FIVE - EVALUATION, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Evaluation

5.2 Conclusion

5.3. Recommendations

Works Cited
 Abstract

Philosophers are the mirror of the society where they use their glass to critically view and analyses
certain human problems in order to propose a certain solution to that problem. The political philosophy
of John Locke on the sustenance of peace and the conduct of good governance have given direction to
any true democratic leaders who are in power to serve humanity and making lives better for his peoples.
This work therefore aims at exposing the political philosophy of John Locke's concept of good
governance which revolves around the philosophy of his social contract. 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 and comfortable enjoyment of their lives,
liberty and property. Since government exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights
of the people and promote the public positively. Locke further argued that any government that fails to
do so can be resisted and replaced with new government. Using expository, analytical and critical
methods of investigation, this research work concludes with a recommendation that if the political view
of John Locke are properly implemented in Nigeria, bad leadership, instability, injustice, the prevalence
of other social ills and the issue of corruption will undeniably be confined to the dusbin of history.

1.1 Background of the Study

Throughout history, man has always sought different methods of organizing himself into political states.
He needed these methods for the systematic organization of himself according to what is befitting to his
nature, since man is both a political and a rational animal that is capable of realizing himself fully in a
well-organized political state. But, the question is; what is the best way to organize and secure a political
society.? In more theoretical terms, this is the task of political philosophers. Searching for the best way
to organize a political community is the main point of Plato's Ideal state. But as much as man's nature
yearns for this perfect and ideal state, where there would be equal right and justice, the idea of the ideal
society has almost always eluded him, owing to the complexity of mans nature. That this yearning has
led him to evolve several methods and systems aimed at the ideal political state is very evident in man's
effort to develop numerous political groups and elites. This is also very clear as regards different political
parties that are formed by the political elites in Nigerian situation, today.

The political terrain in Nigeria is as murky and muddied as ever. The absence of a normative order has
occasioned the rise of individuals and political parties whose personal interests appear to be more
important than the interest of the state itself. This absence of a normative order could be seen as a
modern political absurdity, if ever there is any and a negation of a political state. These individuals and
parties annul national elections with impunity, abduct or murder state officials with alacrity, rig elections
with audacity and raid the national treasury with tenacity. Before them, the state is prostrate and the
nation is powerless. The abuses of political powers and the corruption of our political elites is becoming
the order of the day. And unless concrete efforts are made to demystify governance and leadership, by
redressing the rate of injustices, abuses and corruption, the craze for power among our political leaders
and elites will not stop; it will continue to increase. Thus, Nigerians must be made to imbibe the culture
of a decent life and genuine, meaningful access to wealth through hard work, which could equally exist
outside political offices and political power. Truly, the art of governance and leadership must be
demystified, in order to bring our elected political leaders to serve the people who elected them to the
office with sincerity instead of presenting themselves as Kings and Princes.

It is against this thought-provoking background that we are going to critically expose Locke's concept of
good governance in relation to his political philosophy. John Locke views political state or society as an
association of persons with common consent and agreement. The civil state or political society is
instituted as a remedy for the inconveniences found in the state of nature. Thus political power is
established when the community gives up their natural power and right of enforcing law, order and
preservation of property to the Legislative power. The nature of Government for Locke is that of trust
and embraces only such powers as were transferred at the time of the change from a state of Nature
into civil or political society. Hence it is part of human civilization to aim at the perfect state. Based on
this, Obioha captures the central focus of John Locke's Political Philosophy thus:
"...The beauty of John Locke's political thought lies in the philosophy
behind his social contract. The essence of his political thought; the idea
of government and of governance, the modus oparandi of governance,
all revolves around the philosophy of his social contract. The social
contract of Locke therefore carries certain fundamental features,
characteristics and values that must be imbibed and executed by the
 government of the commonwealth so as to make true and real the
essence of political society..."(48).

From the foregoing, it is evident that the entire gamut of Locke's political philosophy, the idea of his
government and of governance, the modus oparandi of good governance lies in his philosophy of social
contract. Furthermore, Obioha outlines the following fundamental features and values as characterizing
Locke's Social Contract thus:

 The idea of the rule of law

 Checks and balances

 The idea of the government as the servant of the people etc.

However, in as much John Locke clamours for a perfect state, a good Nigerian will find it difficult to see
such propositions exist in Nigerian government. The problems of leadership as well as the political issues
have continued to worsen giving everybody no hope of change at all. The political Elites and the leaders
of this Nation have continued to find it difficult to defend our fledgling democracy. this research work
concludes with a recommendation that if the political view of John Locke are properly implemented in
Nigeria, bad leadership, instability, injustice, the prevalence of other social ills and the issue of
corruption will undeniably be confined to the dusbin of history.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

John Locke in his Treatises of Government published in 1689 holds the view that political power exists
and that it is exercised only for the public good. The basis of government as we know is consent, and the
powers which are wielded by Princes and Rulers inhere in such consent; it is not based on any absolute
right found on grant, covenant or otherwise, but on conditions of a trust, and under liability to forfeiture
if the conditions are not fulfilled.

The question: Who should rule? For what purpose? And what is the best form of government are
fundamental questions in Locke’s concept of good government which we will expose. This long essay
will also look at the question of the best practical ways which the government can be responsible and
responsive to the people.

1.3 Objective of the Study

The major objective of this research is to critically expose John Locke's concept of good governance. As a
matter of clarity, it is necessary to establish a kind of background that will make the concept of political
thought in Locke, understandable and appreciable. As such, the work will briefly examine Locke's
political philosophy before exposing his concept of good governance.

1.4 Significance of the Study

It will be very apt to say that the significant of this work is to show that John Locke's concept of good
governance is what is needed by any given society and can bring about the wellbeing and development
of their people If rightly applied. Equally, the study is necessary because it presents a well-established
political society whereby important dimensions of political life are discussed and normalized. The nature
of political terrain in the country today will inspire us to appreciate Lockes theory well. A study of this
nature will also serve as additional volume to the already existing materials in Locke's concept of good
governance.

1.5 Method of the Study

The question of methodology in a work of this magnitude cannot be over emphasized, and as the topic
suggests, the methodology to be employed will be largely expository, analytical, critical and evaluative
methods of investigation.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The scope of this study will be limited to the analysis of John Locke's concept of good governance.
However, necessary reference will be made to other Philosophers thought on good governance. In this
light, the whole corpus of John Locke's Political Philosophy will be carefully scrutinized.

1.7 Definition of Key Terms

i. Good Governance

Governance is the act of governing. It relates to decisions that define expectation, grant power, or verify
performance. It consists of either a separate process or part of decision making or leadership processes.
In modern nation-states, these processes and systems are typically administered by a government.

Good governance is a difficult concept, as it is not always easy to define. It is amenable to different
definitions depending on the perception of the person. Wikipedia sees good governance as an
indeterminate term used in international development literature to describe how public institutions
conduct public affairs and manage public resources. However, when we remember that the modern
state is a human creation, according to the social contract theorists, namely; John Locke, Thomas
Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau, one can hazard on what constitutes good governance.

ii. Social Contract

Thesaurus dictionary sees Social Contract as the voluntary agreement among individuals by which,
according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into
being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations
among its members.
iii. Politics

The term 'politics' is derived from the Greek word 'Polis', which means the city state. According to Greek
Philosophers, Politics was a subject which dealt with all the activities and affairs of the city state.
However, Merriam-webster dictionary defines Politics as the art or science concerned with guiding or
influencing governmental policy.

iv. Democracy

The term 'Democracy' is derived from the two Greek 'dēmos' meaning 'people' and 'kratos' meaning
'rule. It is a form of government in which the people have the authority to choose their governing
legislators. Merriam-webster dictionary defines Democracy as a government in which the supreme
power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of
representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

v. Leadership

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines leadership as 'the office or position of a leader, the capacity to
lead, and the act or instance of leading

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter focuses on the review of literature that are related to John Locke and his notion of good
governance. Our idea also considers other Philosophers thought on good governance. Our sources
include Primary and Secondary Books, Chapter titles and articles from online scholarly works. This is
aimed at providing a theoretical framework to our study.
PLATO:

Plato was the first Greek philosopher to systematically expound ideas about society. The spark to this
came from the death of Socrates, his teacher in the hands of the rulers at that time. His death gave
spark to Greek political thought (Irele 16). Socrates’ death caused Plato to turn away from politics and
to be against Athenian democratic institution. All his effort in The Republic is simply to spell out how this
ideal state could be achieved. He contends that men have different skills or abilities which serve their
mutual interest. Since men are not self sufficient they depend on others for their needs in order to
provide themselves with all the necessities of life, hence they are social beings. In this way, economic
foundation of the state is laid-the city-state would than flourish and expand and this leads to growing
expectations and luxurious wants. Thus, enmity would arise since greed would creep in, neighbor would
eye the wealth of other city states and this will lead to war among them. This necessitates that there
should be a standing body, an army force to protect the state. In this way; he contends that justice and
temperance will be attained in the state. And justice in the state could be likened to justice in the
individual.

Plato believes that his ideal state would be stable, harmonious and justice would prevail there. He
believes that the guardians since they are philosophers would rule in the interest of the whole society
hence his aphorism:

... There will be no end to the trouble of states till philosophers become
Kings in this world, or till those we now call Kings and rulers can truly
become philosophers and political power and philosophy thus come
into the same hands (375).

The best form of governance, he asserted helps the populace attain happiness. If there is the best, then
it logically follows that there is the worst. What is the worst? Tyranny, for him is opposed to good
governance.

ARISTOTLE:

Aristotle was a student of Plato whose political thought also extensively shaped the political tradition of
the western world. According to him, a state could be organized in at least three different kinds of
government – monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy. To judge the best among these forms of
government whose perversion are tyranny and Oligarchy, he tried to examine those who hold power
and in whose interest it is exercised. To him, the state exists for the good life of every one and to
achieve this aims justice must prevail in all circumstances. To this effect, he says there must be a mutual
relationship between the rulers and the ruled so that the aim of the state may be realized. In the light of
this, he seeks the common interest as the primary aim of the government and as such just actions must
dominate in order to give room for a good government.

Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics sees the good as that which all men aim at, but the good of the state
is nobler and divine than the good of the individual. Therefore all men should safeguard the good of the
state. He also analyze the different types of justice and he refers to some as complete justice and others
as partial justice.(321). According to him, just actions demand fairness in all aspects. He says that justice
can only be found among those who share a common life. More so, a true and just leader is one who
does not have more than his share, therefore the just ruler acts for the benefits of others.

THOMAS AQUINAS

The state for him is a natural institution. It is derived from the nature of humanity. He argues in his
Summa Theologiae that everything has an end but whereas other creatures attain their ends extensively
and necessarily, men on the other hand attain their end by reason. The power of reason simply enables
man to work in close collaboration with his fellow to attain his end. For Aquinas, as society is natural to
man so also government is natural to society. There must be a central government that harmonizes and
works for the common good of all. He said that government exists primarily for the common good, to
promote internal peace, to defend the state as well as to ensure sufficient supply of the basic needs of
the society. The citizens have a right to revolution if any law puts much burden on them; they have the
right to resist such law. The ruler, for him, is also subject to the law. Finally, he asserts that “we are not
obliged to obey an unjust law except when its disobedience will bring about scandal and disorder”(96).

ST. AUGUSTINE

It is most interesting to note that Matthew I. Nwoko describes St. Augustine, a political philosopher of
the medieval era, not only as a political philosopher but in these words:

... One could say that if any political philosopher in human history has
achieved any outstanding depth in blending practice and ideals in socio
– political philosophy, it is St Augustine. I call him political existentialist
(Nwoko 48).

The next question that may agitate the mind of one reading the above expression is this; what did
Augustine say about governance? According to him, good governance is all about peaceful co-existence
of the people with their leader. St. Augustine in his City of God holds that earthly peace is good both for
the believers and unbelievers. For him, it is only a means to an end to a higher good that is, to the peace
of the city of God. The believers, therefore, should try to secure earthly peace or order, freedom and
security to achieve their higher goal.(653).
G.W. F. HEGEL

G. W. F. Hegel (1770 – 1831) of the modern epoch is very relevant in the face of religious intolerance
that inhibits the smooth running of good governance. He asserts:

... The essence of the relation between religion and the state can be
determined however, only if we recall the concept of religion. The
content of religion is absolute truth and consequently religion is the
most sublime of all dispositions (270).

Furthermore, Hegel in his book Reason in History maintained that:

The idea of God gives foundation to the existence of a people. As a truth

content of religion is therefore not something removed from the
humanity reality… (64).

It is not wrong to assert that good governance cannot be complete without religion and the political
systems of state complementing one another. Thus, the religion of a people must be respected to attain
the standard of good governance. A genuine religion, according to him, is not against the state in the
negative or polemic way. Rather, it affirms the fact that religious dispositions help to brighten the
expectations of the people concerning governance (65).

JOHN LOCKE

The state of nature is not a state of lawlessness, for men in the state of nature has the natural law to
guide them, the natural law decreed by God and self evident to human reason. For him, morality already
existed before the origin of political society or government, and the right to own private property is a
natural right. For him, all men are equal in the sense that they havrights which are anterior to those
given them by society, and since they are not given them by society they cannot be taken away by
society either. These natural rights are rights to freedom of life and property.

For him, the government should protect the property of the individual. In John Locke’s Two Treatises of
Government, he lucidly advocated an accountable relationship between what nature has provided for
them and the way they have to use it. This is succinctly referred to as the “Lockean spoilage
theory”(Laslette 455). Here John Locke, not only that he favored democratic kind of governance he by
implication canvasses for accountable governance so that there would be good governance. He says that
spoilage is a natural limit placed on the appropriation of property to check excesses, for God did not
make anything for man to spoil. Spoilage is therefore a crime against nature and liable for punishment
through conscience. Locke should be credited for his use of spoilage proviso as a measure of property
appropriated to guide against what J. I. Omoregbe calls unscrupulous amassing of wealth (Omoregbe
188).
BARON DE MONTESQUIEU

According to Montesquieu there are three forms of government – Republican, Monarchical and
Despotic each with its method of distributing power. Traditionally, there are three types of

power namely the executive, legislative and the Judicial. And that for there to be good governance there
must be separation of powers among these powers. The idea of separation of power appears to have
been derived from the problem relation between society, man, state and sovereign. The relations
between the state, society and government should be founded upon the extent to which the state
orders its structures and institutions through good governance to achieve good life, a better society
should enjoy the benefits of freedom equality, justice and modernity. To actualize the fruits of good
governance, encumbrance to human dignity are done away with, one of such encumbrance is upon
concentration of the powers of the state in the hands of one organ.

Montesquieu held and argued tenaciously that the power of the state should be shared out between
the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. And that when the legislature and executive powers are
combined in the same person or in the same body of magistrates there can be no liberty because
apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should make tyrannical laws, execute them
in a tyrannical manner. Hence, he asserts:

There is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the

legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to
arbitrary control for the judges would then be the legislator where it is
joined to the executive power, the judges might behave with violence
and oppressions (Nnaemeka and Theophilus173).

Montesquieu attaches great importance to the doctrine of separation of power not just because it
makes government officials accountable for their actions and a potent blow for tyranny, but makes
provision for good governance.

NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI

This Italian 15th century philosopher was popularly known for his two controversial texts namely:
“The Prince”, and “The Discourse”. He was one of the major proponents of mixed government. His view
was derived from his quest for a tranquil government which he saw as the best form of
government( Machiavelli 120).

In his work The Discourse, Machiavelli used three different countries’ constitution to illustrate his point.
Those countries include: (1) Rome which Machiavelli was advising on how to attain tranquility in their
state. (2) Ancient Sparta which is governed by a king and small senate. The state restricts access to it
from outsiders. It adopted the laws of Lycurgus which prescribed equality of property while insisting less
in equality of rank (3) Modern Venice whose dwellers all participated in the government. But there were
people who were taking to be eligible for administrative posts, and their head was called gentry. Real
citizens were called gentle folk while the alien was called the commoners, but none was denied
anything but authority which is vested only on the gentry. It was in this manner of administration that
tranquility was achieved in the state(Machiavelli 120). For the Roman constitution, he puts thus:

“All things considered, therefore it is clear that it was necessary for

Rome’s legislators to do one or two things if she was to achieve
tranquility like the aforesaid states: Either to emulate the Venetians and
not employ its plebs in war, or like the Spartans, not to admit foreigners,
or that she combines both elements”( 121).

In the final analysis, Machiavelli through his suggestion to the Roman city could be said to have
supported the idea of mixed government as a means of achieving tranquility in a city. However, he failed
to give a detailed organization on the power of the state as he was majorly focused on the best way to
attain a peaceful state. He also failed to take cognizance of the corrupting human desires always
manifesting in the state power holders, as the possible cause of commotion in the city-state. In other
words, he was focused on the external problems or causes of commotion in the state, and overlooked
the internal riders of distress of the state. With this, he failed to give appropriate attention to the
organization of power of the government in the state.

THOMAS HOBBES

Hobbes’ political theory starts with a description of human nature. He claims that all men are equal in
the state of nature, he says, “they are equal, who can do equal things one against the other, but they
who can do the greatest things namely, kill, can do equal thing”(Hobbes 144). But due to men’s egoistic
quest for satisfaction men seek power and glory by all means. The state of nature does not have political
institutions and there is no sovereign authority. It is a state where utter anarchy reigns indeed a state of
war where individuals driven by their egoistical instinctual natures, struggle for power, glory and
security. The struggle has no rules there is no authority or arbitrator to enforce rules even if they
existed, hence “there is always a warfare like situation among men in the state of nature, a state of
homo homini Lupus – a condition in which man is wolf to man” (Hobbes 144).

However, Hobbes considers life in the state of nature unsatisfactory, as it does not help man to achieve
his goals. There is pervading atmosphere of insecurity in the state of nature. But the passion in man
induce him to seek for peace. The power of reason with which he is endowed enables him to construct
articles of peace or agreement; these articles of peace are for him, the laws of nature. They are eternal
and immutable. Thus, people enter into bond or contract to establish peace and order. There must be a
covenant made, everyone must be ready to lay down his rights, which means to divest oneself of the
liberty of constituting oneself as obstacle or danger to another.
This for him can be done in two ways, by simply renouncing it and by transferring it to another person.
And their social contract would be of two fold the people would agree among themselves first and after
they would authorize a person or group of men to rule them. For Hobbes the sovereign authority is not
part of the contract. In fact, he is not involved in the agreement at all. It is because he is given the power
to rule: therefore he is above the contract reached.

BENEDICT SPINOZA

The concept of virtue, power and self-determination or freedom are again the central concepts in
Spinoza’s political philosophy. Spinoza, having read through Thomas Hobbes’ works agreed with him
that for one to restrain social anarchy and to ensure peace, harmony and survival, people enter into a
social contract in which they make an agreement to give sovereign power to a sovereign political ruler.

According to Spinoza, all beings including the human person has a sovereign natural right to behave in
the way that he or she has been conditioned and determined by nature (both his or her powers and
likewise activities).

He says:

... The natural right of the individual follows from the necessity of its
nature and the sovereign law and right of its nature is that each
individual should endeavour to preserve itself… to exist and act
according to its natural conditions… whatsoever an individual does by
the laws of its nature, it has a sovereign right to do it, as much as it acts
as it was conditioned by nature and cannot act otherwise (Spinoza 201).

The sovereign rights of the individual are commensurate with the individual’s natural right striving to
persist in being and to develop its power and activities (Walsh 243). This has prompted the interest of
the individuals to enter into a social contract. By so doing, the social framework of the individual to be
secure and rationally lived can be provided for everyone. In other words, it is the duty of the
government of the state to provide the framework of the people so that they can live rationally. In order
to have peace and security in the state, the power of the government is handed to a sovereign ruler
whom their right to command and rule is limited only by the limits of his own natural powers.

Spinoza, in his political thought, made a remark about the natural selfishness of the human person; that
human beings are conditioned by nature to pursue only his interest. If everyone is inclined to this, it
follows that there would be chaos and anarchy over the whole society. According to Spinoza, just like
Hobbes, there is the necessity to form and organize civil society so that these chaotic and anarchical
behaviour could be eradicated in society, and this organized civil society should also go with laws to
restrict people’s behaviour in the pursuit of self-interest. Thus, the aim of a civil society is to provide an
orderliness and security for everyone in the society.

In an article written by Dr. Nwolise titled “The essence of governance,” published in the Nigerian
Political Leadership handbook and who is who. He recommends in the paper that each Nigeria
government is expected to perform the following roles defend the nation from external attack, pursue
the economic welfare of the masses, see to the administration of justice, make laws for peace, order
and good government and development of that nation; meet the socio-economic needs or obligations to
the people, especially in terms of employment, payment and upgrading of salaries, wages, allowances
and promotion, as and when due.

Samuel Ogbuju and O. C. Eneh(Ph.D) in their ''Locating The Reality of the Social contract Theory and the
failed State Concept in Nigeria's Governance'' published in Sustainable Human Development Review,
Vol.6 maintains that years after Nigeria gained political independence, the country has not translated
her enormous human and natural resources to expected ecomomic development measured in GDP per
capita. Samuel and Eneh thus tell us that Nigeria is faced with poverty manifestation which include:
decaying infrastructure, child/labor/trafficking, cultism, brain-drain, insecurity, industrial unrest,
'sorting', handout, examination malpractice, certificate racketeering, indecent dressing and seduction,
poor attitude to work, embezzlement of public funds, extortion by uniformed men, and degrading
environment(53). The article further recommends that John Locke's political philosophy whose result, if
and when implemented, will help to move Nigeria forward.

In discussing what good governance entails, C. B. Okolo and J. O. Eneh in their article titled “The
common good and political stability,” in M. Dukor (ed) Philosophy and Politics; Discourse on values,
politics and power in Africa, brought the philosophies of Aristotle and contract theorists like Thomas
Hobbes to bear on Nigeria society and Africa in general and on how common good and political stability
could be achieved. According to them, in the pursuits of individual selfish ends, the citizen forgets the
common good, (a subculture which has set many countries on the edge of crises). The common good
and government not only are the reason for the existence of society but also constitute a sine-qua-non
for political stability (Okolo and Eneh, xvi-xvii).

In their article therefore, they expose that one of the fundamental concerns of political societies is the
question of the common good or the goods communally procured by societies themselves for individual
members or groups in their quest for what Aristotle calls “a good life”. In the article it is stressed that in
many political communities of Africa, especially Nigeria, this crisis of man seeking his own private good
has eaten deep to the heart of Nigerians and also the individual is selfish to the core. In these
communities, the sense of, for instance public property, government property, Church property etc is
significantly dulled, not paid much attention, and certainly not respected. The effect have been
catastrophic in many developing nations including this much vaunted ‘Giant of Africa’, Nigeria. Incidents
of looting public funds and property, carefree wastage of natural resources, etc, in the name of national
cake is also a big problem to our development. They also made us to understand in the article that
Nigerians have taken the society as mere theatre for the pursuit of selfish ends, a place for a bitter
struggle for who gets what for one’s self, one’s family and friends. The society is not a place for working
for the good of others. Ignorance of the true nature of the common good and its relationship to private
good on the part of the Nigerian people and the ill ordered or disoriented conduct which stems from it is
responsible for the instability which has so far trailed the nation’s political history.

Also, Maduabuchi Dukor’s position is very apt here. In his work, “Justice and the principle of necessity,”
in his edited book, Philosophy and Politics: Discourse on values, politics and power in Africa, Dukor
examines the concept of state, political obligation, common interest and common good as they bear on
the principles of necessity, international law and municipal law in the operation of the state-craft. Dukor
accordingly developed intimately into the ontologies of justices as a concept that manifest itself in all
animate and inanimate beings. Justice as an ontological concept and as an ideal popularly sought by
government, policy makers and individuals suggest a higher moral norm in the operation of law and
state – craft. More importantly, the principle of necessity as a law, as an action and as an emergency
instrument of the state should be guided by justice defined as a meta justicatory principle of law and
state action ( Dukor, xvi).

In another article by Said Adejumobi on “Africa and challenges of Democracy and good Governance in
the 21st Century”, he said that the long years of political misrule (and of course bad governance
exemplified by personalized political regimes and ruthless dictatorship) left most African States,
especially Nigeria, politically demobilized and economically decapacitated with an immiserised
population ravaged by poverty, illiteracy and disease. He traces the current global emphasis on good
governance and sets in context the theoretical concepts.

The paper also analyze that the litany of Africa’s development problems is a crisis of good governance.
By governance is meant the exercise of political power to manage a nations affairs. Because
countervailing power has been lacking, state officials in many countries especially Nigeria have served
their own interest without fear of being called to account. In self defence, individuals have built up
personal networks of influence rather than hold the all-powerful state accountable for its systemic
failure. In this way, politics becomes personalized and patronage becomes essential to maintain power.
In the article Said Adejumobi also talked about bad governance. According to him, the orgy of bad
governance looms large in Africa and afflicts a broad spectrum of political regimes-“parliamentary,”
“military,” ‘one party regimes’. The curious question is what went wrong in the governance realm, in
Africa, especially Nigeria? Two factors seem to have facilitated bad governance in Nigeria. First is
obviously the colonial pedigree. There is a strong linkage between the absence of good governance in
the colonial era and that of the post colonial period. The political structures and values, economic base
and social orientation promoted in the colonial era were antithetical to the evolution of good
governance and democracy.

Secondly, in the post colonial period, the emphasis of the political rulers was on national integration,
unit and development. Thus, the dominant doctrine was one of a “dictatorship of development”, rather
than the “democracy of development”, However, given the non-autonomisation of the state, the paucity
of resources of the ruling class and its lack of hegemony, the tendency was that governance
degenerated significantly, as the state became an arena of fratricidal struggles for primitive
accumulation and power control. Governance in this context assumes a musical chair game, which
oscillates between what Max Weber described as the phenomenon of sultanism, to military
dictatorships and garrison socialism. The net effect was that political alienation and departicipation and
increasing material poverty became the norms of political governance in Africa. Both democracy and
good governance took a retreat.

In furtherance of his analysis, he said that good governance is not associated with any particular form of
political regime or system. It is simply about effective and productive governance which may be present
in a democratic, dictatorial, totalitarian or socialist regime depending on how the rulers manage political
power and its result. Good governance is measured by the extent to which a political regime can
guarantee popular welfare and promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people in the
society (Adejumobi 6).

In his article titled: "Gender and Good Governance in John Locke" published in American Journal of
Social Issues & Humanities Vol. 2 Kanu Ikechukwu observes that good governance for Locke, is when the
objectives of the civil society is realised. One of the basic reasons for realising a political society is for
justice and thus equality among all men and women. Marital equality is indispensable to social and
political equalities, and thus good governance. A tyrannical head of a family, for Locke cannot be a good
candidate for democratic political leader, and thus cannot actualise good governance. This is based on
the understanding that the realms of life between the private and the public cannot be separated or
treated in isolation from each other (Okin, 1991). Every action is potentially infused with public meaning.
Locke's position on this matter is born out of the realization that political activities reach into and begin
with private relations most especially in the family. What goes on between man and woman in their
home is created by and in turn creates what goes on in legislature and battlefields. Private actions could
create public inequalities of power while public decisions in turn could create domestic inequalities of
power while public decisions could create domestic inequalities of power. The decision makers in the
political society, from voters to the legislators, develop their first political awareness in private and
familial setting (Mansbridge and Okin, 1993). Thus for the realization of good governance, gender
equality is indispensable.

The concept of good governance is well expressed by Maraizu Elechi in his article ''Good Governance in
Aristotle's Political Philosophy: Lesson for Nigeria." Published in South-South journal Humanities &
International Studies Vol.1. The article examines Aristotle's views on good governance and political
stability. It holds that lack of good governance is responsible for political instability and societal decay. It
highlights the contradictions which impede good governance, and promote political instability. These
are lessons for Nigeria to learn from. The paper attempts to subject governance in Nigeria to some
critical examination. This critical appraisal is as a result of the seeming conspicuous gap between
theoretical demands and the practical realization of good governance. The Aristotelian theory on good
governance is applied to the Nigerian situation, with the conclusion that good governance is
indispensable for national development, and that to achieve peace and stability, car leaders must be
well co-opted in the act of governance. They must spear no effort to ensure adherence to Aristotle's
views, especially on how to achieve good governance and political stability. The same effort is also
expected of the citizenry, by ensuring that they abide by the principles of moral virtues and the rule of
law, and to ensure that obedience to the demands. of good governance and political stability are not
compromised.

Charlie Nwekeaku in his article titled: The rule of law, democracy and good governance in Nigeria"
published in Global Journal of Political Science and published Administration argues that The rule of law,
democracy and good governance are the major features of any civilized society today. The governance
of any state where any of them is lacking often degenerates to dictatorship and authoritarianism. The
rule of law provides the general framework for good governance. Democracy floats on the rule of law,
while the good governance promotes and sustains both of them.Nigeria is governed by the rule of law
and democratic principles despite some present limitations. Good governance is the destination of both
democracy and the rule of the law. The media have worked hard to sustain both the rule of law and
democracy despite some structural and institutional problems. Many years of civil rule, no doubt,
assisted to frustrate the functional triumvirate of the rule of law, democracy and the media for
improved good governance in Nigeria. Except an immediate overhaul of the structural, economic, legal,
educational, administrative and other bureaucratic impediments is done the rule of law and democracy
may remain an article of faith, as good governance shall continue to be elusive in Nigeria (Nwekeaku 8).

Rufus, Anthony & David E. Eyo argued In their article titled: "The Lockean State of War and the Nigerian
State: A Comparative" published in Global Journal of Human-Social Science that ct- The level of
lawlessness, judicial inconsistencies, double standard practices and executive over bearances makes it
appear as though Nigeria was in Locke’s mind when he theorized about his State of War. The trajectory
of violent events in Nigeria is a stark reminder that the country is slowly regressing into the hypothetical
state of war created by the social contract theorist; John Locke. The dynamics and the emergence of
violent groups in the country such as the Boko Haram sect, the Niger Delta Avengers and the Fulani
Herds men is a reflection of the general state of insecurity ravaging the country. Using John Locke’s
social contract theory, the research made a comparative analysis of the Nigerian state, and the Lockean
state of war concluding that the country is living in falsehood, as the present constitution does not
reflect the will of the people. Thus, the research emphasized that; if the country is to progress from this
‘state of war’ in which it finds itself, then the state must be ready to renegotiate the contract terms of
this union.

In his article tittled "John Locke's Idea of Responsive Government: A Review of the Culture of
Governance in Nigeria" published in Philosophy and Praxis: Journal of the Nigerian Philosophical
Association Vol. 4 , Obioha Precious maintains that every state exists ultimately for the common good of
all who resides in the state. The attainment of this good of all which is the ends of the state or the
government becomes the standard against which any state is credited or discredited in which the state
stands or falls respectively. What this means is that any state that is not ab initio founded on common
goals and objectives will amount to a negation of what the state is and should be. Moreso, In the
attempt to realize this common good, the state exercises authority over the citizens and demands the
citizens obligation to the state. The source, content and the extent to which this authority is exercised
goes a long way in determining whether this common good is realized. Nevertheless, Obioha's work is
relevant to our study as it helps us to understand the fact that governance in Nigeria experience is a far
cry and therefore calls on the government to live up to their responsibilities.

We have to observe here that the literature review so far presented is not exhaustive of what we have
in the course of this research. But we are of the view that these reviewed are enough to give us a
dependable foundation for a start as they will help us in exposing relevant theoretical positions on our
subject matter.
 CHAPTER THREE

GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF JOHN LOCKE'S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

3.0 Introduction

Locke's contribution to the development of political philosophy is immense, and has continued to be the
starting point of a retinue of modern political theorizing. However, this chapter focuses on the general
understanding of Locke's political thought which lies in his philosophy of social contract.

3.1 Brief Biographical sketch of John Locke

John Locke was an English philosopher born in 1632. His father was a lawyer and small landowner who
had fought on the Parliamentarian side during the English Civil Wars of the 1640s.

Between 1652 and 1667, John Locke was a student and then lecturer at Christ Church, Oxford, where he
focused on the standard curriculum of logic, metaphysics and classics. He also studied medicine
extensively and was an associate of Robert Hooke, Robert Boyle and produced several of his early works,
including the texts which would be posthumously published as the Two Tracts on Government and the
Essays on the Law of Nature. Locke stayed on at the university until 1666, when he met Anthony Ashley
Cooper, the first Earl of Shaftesbury, a powerful political figure who would serve as Lord of the
Exchequer and Lord Chancellor, and later as one of the founders of the Whig party.

Shaftesbury’s and Locke’s meeting came about after Shaftesbury had suffered an abscess on his liver,
and Locke was sent to attend him. Shortly thereafter, Locke devised a means by which to treat the
abscess by surgically installing a pipe with a faucet-like fixture to drain it, which—against all odds—
worked. In gratitude, Shaftesbury placed Locke in various administrative offices over which he held
sway; Locke served as the secretary to the proprietors of the Carolina colony and to the Board of Trade,
composing the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina in the service of his patron, as well as reports to
the Board of Trade that laid out some of his early economic ideas. He also served as a tutor to
Shaftesbury’s son, the third earl of Shaftesbury, who would go on to become a philosopher in his own
right.
Locke left England for France in 1675, but returned in 1679 to assist Shaftesbury during the Exclusion
Crisis. Shaftesbury was involved in the Whig effort to prevent Charles II’s Catholic younger brother,
James, from inheriting the throne, at first by means of parliamentary legislation to exclude Catholic heirs
from the royal succession. Under an increasing cloud of suspicion for his involvement in extra-legal
Exclusion efforts, Locke fled to Holland in 1683 and did not return to England until 1688. It was long
thought that Locke wrote the Two Treatises of Government in 1688 in order to provide a philosophical
justification for the Glorious Revolution, but more recent scholarship has suggested that he in fact
composed most of the work during the period of the Exclusion Crisis in the context of pressure to find a
way to exclude Catholics from the royal succession. The final version bears the traces of both events,
and the Glorious Revolution was certainly conducive to Locke’s own politics. He returned to England and
began publishing his work for the first time. In 1689, the Two Treatises and the Letter Concerning
Toleration were published anonymously, and he had the Essay Concerning Human Understanding
printed under his name.

The Essay in particular brought him broad fame, while his authorship of the other works remained under
dispute but suspected for some time. The 1690s continued to be a fruitful decade for Locke, and he
published Some Thoughts Concerning Education,”The Reasonableness of Christianity,” and papers on
money and interest, as well as several lengthy responses to objections to his works on toleration and
Christianity (Dunn 189).

John Locke never married or fathered any children. He had a close friendship with Lady Damaris
Cudworth Masham that lasted till his death. He died on 28 October 1704 and was buried in the
churchyard of the village of High Laver (TheFamousPeople.com).

3.2 Locke's State Of nature

Contrary to the view of Thomas Hobbes which stipulated that the state of nature is a state of war of all
against all, John Locke sees the state of nature as “men living together according to reason, without a
common superior on earth with authority to judge between them."(11).

Again Locke views the state of nature as “a state of perfected freedom to order their actions and
disposed of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature.”(4).
In this state of nature, all the powers and jurisdictions is equal and reciprocal, because the idea is that all
human beings are from the same biological species. He differs from Hobbes by denying that this state of
nature he tries to project is not characterized by war of all against all, nevertheless he added that
“though this is a state of liberty, man has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his
possession”(5). Reason is for John Locke, what guides and informs the state of nature, reason is the
fundamental point in the state of nature.

John Locke however added another clause to this type of state of nature, he is of the opinion that when
man violets this law of reason, man thus puts himself in a state of war which is unfortunately embedded
with enmity, fight and destruction with others, and thus makes himself pugnacious to humanity. Locke
submitted thus “everyman hath the right to punish the offender and be executioner of the law of
nature”(49). Be that as it may, Locke observed that greed and confusion might set in, in executing the
punishment by each individual in the society, and by implication, war and anarchy may set in. So to
avoid this state of war, make made effort to leave the state of nature out of their own volition and
freewill and form a political society, thus submitting their natural rights of self-defense, rectification of
injustice and so on to a common, central public authority. Be that as it may, Locke observed that greed
and confusion might set in, in executing the punishment by each individual in the society, and by
implication, war and anarchy may set in. So to avoid this state of war, make made effort to leave the
state of nature out of their own volition and freewill and form a political society, thus submitting their
natural rights of self-defense, rectification of injustice and so on to a common, central public authority
(Enemuo 219).

3.3 Locke's State of War

Locke defines state of war as “force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where
there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief.” In other words, state of war erupts
whenever an aggresssor attacks another individual and there is no authority, which could protect the
person under assault. It exits only between individuals directly involved in the conflict, while the rest of
men and women continue to live in state of nature (Lazarski 54).

Thus, the state of war and the state of naturecoexist side by side. The former does not contradict the
latter. The state of war neither end the state of nature as some Philosophers claimed (for example,
Montesquieu, Rousseau), nor are identical, as Hobbes asserted: The opposite to the state of war is the
state of peace, in the same way as the state of nature is the opposite to civil society (Godwin 127).
Furthermore, the state of war and, by extension, the state of nature can reemerge in civil society, if
authority cannot rescue an assaulted person. In such a case, as Locke maintains, state of nature with its
laws immediately returns, and the person under attack may kill the aggressor (who declares a state of
war) in self-defense (Locke 20).

3.4. Locke's Social Contract

There are plethora versions of social contract. A common description of the social contract is that
people give up some of their rights in order to get the benefits of living in civil society. For example, the
current version of the Wikipedia article "Social contract" says:

"... Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have

consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their
freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to
the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining
rights."
The social contract for John Locke actually constituted the introduction of the state or what one can call
the political society construed as a way out for the shortcomings of the state of nature. The state is an
arrangement that makes for the submission of the personal right of reasoning of the individual and the
right of protecting life and property given to the individual by the state of nature, Thomas Lloyd
captured this in his reflection in this words, “so to accept that a state has authority is to accept that you
have a moral obligation to obey it.”(Wiser 226).

Thus Locke submitted that “the only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty is by
agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe and peaceful
living. “(Thomas 54). Social contract theory does not rhyme very well with the Leviathan propounded by
Thomas Hobbes, in the social contract setting, contracting parties do not forgo their liberty outrightly
and live in servitude as was stipulated by Hobbes. What it entails is that the contracting parties forgo
their right of demanding for justice as they deem fit and thus hand the right over to a legislative power
for common good. Thus people’s lives, property and freedom are adequately secured. Political society
for John Locke emerged when people decided to come together and be ruled by the decision of the
majority( Enemuo 220).

Basically people unite together so as to ensure the adequate protection of lives and property. What
Locke had in mind when he was speaking about property where namely: lives, liberty/freedom and
estates. Brandishing the state of nature as an ugly situation, he enumerated some major objectives of
forming a civil government. This could be summarized in the following three points.

a. Instituting a common law by common consent, to determine right and wrong

b. Electing a known and indifferent judge with authority to deter all differences according to
stipulated laws.

c. Instituting an executive power to carry out right judgment

With this working optimally, the common good of the people is ought to be met. However, the
government which is constituted by the people has onerous task to fulfill by the different arms of
government for the purpose of peace, safety and public good of the people. The legislative sees to the
public good by deciding how the forces of society shall be utilized. The legislative differ from the
executive, the executive is in charge of administering the law and executing the law, thus Locke opined
that “the task of administering the law and overseeing the punishment of those who disobey should be
delegated to the executive.” (107). The power of the executive should always be under check by the
legislative, it the onus of the legislative to establish laws and principles that would guide the actions of
the executive.

A very important aspect of this is that the government can be dissolved if the trust placed upon them
became obviously questioned. What this means is that the government is and should be people
oriented. It is based on the amount of trust that people placed on them. Pertinent to note here is that
the relationship existing between the government and the society
is fiduciary rather than a contract form. If the legislative power betrays its trust, it may be removed and
the power devolved into the hands of those that gave it, who may place it in a new place, where they
shall think best for their safety and security. John Locke posited two types of dissolution, namely:
dissolution from within and dissolution as overturning from without. Other reasons why a government
could be dissolved could be when “a prince sets up his own arbitrary will of the society, declared by the
legislative, then the legislative is changed”(Thomas 54). Again, the government is also dissolved “when
the prince hinders the legislative from assembling in its due time or from acting freely, pursuant to those
ends for which it was constituted.” Dissolution can also occur, “when by the arbitrary power of the
prince, the electorate or ways of election are altered, without the consent and contrary to the common
interest of the people; there also, the legislative is altered ( Locke 108). A government may also be
dissolved when “the delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the
prince, or by the legislative” Finally, and most importantly, as it affects Nigeria, a government should be
dissolved when “he who has the supreme executive power neglects and abandons that charge, so that
the laws already made can no longer be put in executive.”(ibid).

3.5.1 Locke's Concept of Separation of power

Locke identified three distinct power entities that exist for the proper governance of the state, they
include; The Legislative Power, The Executive Power, and The Federative Power.

3.5.2. The Legislative Power

This is the Body which the members of the political society employ all their powers in making law of the
community (Aquinas 1361). According to Locke, “the legislative power is that which has a right to direct
how the force of the commonwealth shall be employed for preserving the community and it
members.”(Hobbes 104). Locke argues that for the realization of the end for which men unite in the
community, the Legislative power is put into the hands of different individuals who by their assembling
with other, elected or appointed persons, have the power to make Laws which when they have done,
being separated again, they are themselves subject to the laws they have made; which is new and near
tie upon them, to take care as they make them for the public good. Locke understood the legislative
power as not only the supreme power in the community as it is seen as the power of the whole
members who they represent, but also sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community has
once placed it. Therefore, no edict or body whatsoever has the force and obligation of a law which has
not its sanction from that legislative, which the public has chosen and appointed (Ibid). Also no foreign
or domestic subordinate power can discharge any member of the society from his obedience to the
legislative, nor oblige him to any obedience contrary to the laws so enacted,or farther than they do
allow (Locke 354).

On an important note, Locke opines that while the legislative power is seen as supreme, yet in the
people resides more supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act
contrary to the trust reposed in them. In the constitution is always found the proper regulation of
legislative sitting, but in the cases of emergencies, the executive may act on their behalf. Because the
laws that are at once, and in short time made by the legislative arm, have a constant and lasting force,
and need a perpetual execution, there is of great necessity of a Body or Power who will always be in
being, which should see to the execution of the law that are made, and remain in force. This leads to the
second Body or Power of the commonwealth known as the Executive (Nnaemeka 99).

3.5.2 The Executive Power

According to Locke, for the executive power placed on someone who does not share in the legislative,
becomes subordinate and accountable to it, and thereby cannot be regarded as a supreme executive.
Also, on the executive is placed with the power of convoking the legislative but not with the power of
forcefully hindering the meeting and acting of the legislative. This implies that the executive reserves the
power to hinder the assembling of the legislative if the constitution of the commonwealth grants
them/him such authority. It is to be noted according to Locke that the power of assembling and
dismissing the legislative, placed on the executive, gives not the executive a superiority over it, but it is a
fiduciary Trust, placed on him, for the safety of the people, in a case where the uncertainty, and
variableness of humane affairs could not bear a steady fixed rule. As the executive is vested with all
these responsibilities within the Commonwealth, it may, according to Locke, be incapable of taking care
of the issues without. This brings about the third arm of government for Locke. This governmental
power he called federative power (Nnaemeka 102).

3.5.3 Federative Power

For Locke, on entering a particular political society through a consented agreement with other men, one
becomes one Body with those he entered into agreement with, and all men outside that agreement
become aliens. He may still share anything with an alien but with the mind he had when he was in the
natural state. When there is a controversy between a man within a state and another from without, and
since the one within has resigned his rights with the powers of the Commonwealth, it is therefore
expected that one of the powers of the Commonwealth should see to the settlement of such external
controversy, and according to Locke, this power of the state can be called federative power (Locke 362).

The Federative Power contains therefore the power of war and peace, Leagues and Alliances, and all the
transactions with all persons and communities outside the Commonwealth. Locke understood the
closeness of the functions of this power with that of the executive power when he writes:

“though these two powers be really distinct in themselves, yet, one

comprehending the execution of municipal laws of the society within
itself, upon all that are part of it; the other the management of security
and interest of the public without, with all those that it may receive
benefit or damage from, yet they are always almost united.”(365).

Moreso, The major issue associated with the separation of both powers lie in their nature of operation,
because while the nature of operation of the federative power requires that it hardly accepts directives
from any antecedent, standing or positive laws, the opposite applies to the executive power. Therefore,
it demands that the federative power be necessarily left to theprudence and wisdom of those whose
hands it is in, to be managed for the public good (Nnaemeka 100).

In summary, Locke identifies three power entities in the viz: The Legislative, The Executive, and The
Federative. Locke affirms that the legislative and the executive power come often to be separated. He
however accepts the difficulty in separating the executive from the federative even to the extent of
doubting its practicableness.

3.6. John Locke and the rule of Law

Without law or the rule of it, it becomes difficult if not impossible for a society to fare well. Therefore,
the need for law or the rule of it in any society is beyond dispute. This is a truism, which Locke strongly
believes in and wants to see bear on the civil society. Locke sees law as instrumental to the realization of
the reason d'etre of the social contract - the civil society. He writes:

The great end of men's entering into society being the enjoyment of
their properties in peace and safety, and the great instrument and
means of that being the laws established in that society.(Lcoke 413).

To this end, Locke advocates the establishment of the legislative power as the first fundamental natural
law, which is to govern even the legislature itself. According to him, this legislative power is not only the
supreme power of the commonwealth, but sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community
have onced placed it, nor can any edict of anybody else in what form so ever conceived, or by what
power so ever backed, have the force and obligation of a law which has not its sanction from that
legislature which the public has chosen and appointed. The import of this is the recognition by Locke, of
the supremacy of the law over everybody including the legislature itself. The law is no respecter of
persons and therefore enjoins total obedience and respect by all including the very operators of the law.
This is why Locke frowns at absolute and arbitrary power and places a vote of no confidence on such a
government. Locke as quoted by Obioha writes:

And hence it is evident that absolute monarchy, which by some men is

counted inconsistent with civil society, and so can be no form of civil
government at all.(49).

3.7. John Locke's Concept of Political Authority

The concept of Political authority plays a very important role in understanding John Locke's
political Philosophy and his concept of good governance. What is Political Authority.? According to Paul
Wolff I his book, In Defense of Anarchism, Authority means the right to command, and correlatively, the
right to be obeyed.(Wolff: 1970). He went further to distinguish authority from power which(power) is
the ability to compel compliance, either through the use or the threat of force. By way of analog, He
says: When I turn over my wallet to a thief who is holding me at gun point, I do so because the fate with
which he threatens me is worse than the lose of money which I am made to suffer. I grant that he has
power over me, but would hardly suppose that he has authority, that is, that he has a right to demand
my money and that I have an obligation to give it to him. In contrast, he went further to say, when the
government present me with a bill for taxes, on the other hand, I pay it (normally) even though I do not
wish to, and even if I think I can get away with not paying. It is after all, the duly constituted government
and hence it has a right to tax me. It has authority over me... " (ibid.). To claim authority is therefore to
claim the right to be obeyed. To have authority is to have that right or to have one's claim acknowledge
and accepted by those at whom it is directed.

Locke's concept of political authority is seen in his two treatises on Government. The first treatise seems
a criticism of Filmer's divine right of kings or hereditary power of Kings. Sir Robert Filmer in his work
entitled Patriarchal claimed that Adam was first king, and present king are, to be reputed next heir to
him. (Filmer: 1680). In this Patriarchal theory, the King alone makes the law, which is a product of his will
and not subject to any human control. Such state of affairs leaves the community at the mercy of a
despot since political power derives neither from any contract nor any consideration of the public good,
but entirely from the authority of the father over his children. Therefore to Locke, hereditary cannot be
accepted as the basis of legitimate Political power. He traced the origin of political authority to the social
contract made by people who were formerly in the 'state of nature'.

In his second treatise on Government, he shows what obtains in the 'state of nature'. It is:

A state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their

possessions and persons as they think fit within the bonds of the law of
nature without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other
man. (Locke, 125).

This means that the state of nature for Locke is a state of total freedom where men are lords to
themselves and also wise in their own eyes. It is a state of individualism. But although it is a state of total
freedom and individualism, men are not at liberty to destroy one another unlike what obtains in the
state of nature of Hobbes where there is 'war of all against all" resulting to life being nasty, brutish and
short'(ibid.). Rather it is a state of equality. Everybody is born to the same advantages of nature with
equal strength, intelligence and faculty of punishing offenders against himself. In no aspect does anyone
have more than the other. Locke calls it:

A state of equality wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than
another; there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank
promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature. (Ibid.).
 CHAPTER FOUR

EXPOSITION OF JOHN LOCKE'S CONCEPT OF GOOD GOVERNANCE

4.0 Introduction

As already indicated, good governance for John Locke, is when the objectives of the civil society is
realized. Thus this section of our study will proceed to exposing Locke's Concept of good governance. His
Idea of Check and Balance, and his Idea of Government as the servant of the people will also be exposed
elaborately.

4.1 Locke's Idea of Good Governance

In Locke's political philosophy, the state of nature is the first stage in the process of transition into civil
society. The state of nature with all its inadequacies creates the need for a political society. This need
speaks of the inadequacies of the state of nature, which creates the appetite for anticipating a good
system of governance in the civil society. Moving from a state of nature where individuals are not
subjected to common legitimate authority with the power to legislate or adjudicate disputes, Locke
stressed upon the dynamics of individual consent as the mechanism for forming the civil society. Locke
(1999) wrote, “Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal and independent, no one can be
put out of this state, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent” (142).

The first process of transition, leads to the formation of the community, where each person agrees to
surrender individual control over their executive power of the law of nature in exchange for an equal
share, along with the other contractors, in the joint control of everyone's pooled executive power of the
law of nature. As such, the executive power of the law of nature is de-privatized (Kanu 254). The
formation of the community only takes us half way into the formation of the political society. It is thus
an intermediate state between the state of nature and the civil society. It is not yet a state because
there is no formally constituted body which has the authority to legislate and enforce the law. The
formation of the community leaves things incomplete and calls for a second stage in order to establish a
civil society. This involves the formulation of a formally constituted authority to exercise the collective
executive power of the state of nature. It should be noted that the entrustment of their executive power
is not to individual persons, but to a constitutional form. The constitutional form would help people
identity those who hold political power with right. By majority decision, the members of the community
entrust their collective executive powers of the law of nature into the hands of a constitutional form of
government, and thus, the state is created (Iloyd 253 ).

For the constitutional form of government to run a system to be ascribed as good in Locke, certain
values are indispensable. For Locke, justice and moral goodness are indispensable variable for a
government to be considered good. For this reason, the violation of treatises, political assassinations
and unjust war are inimical to good governance (Maritain, 821).

Good governance must show itself in an ability to create a bond that is teleological, ontological,
affective, moral, organisational and communicative (Messner cited by Anaulogho, 171). Good
governance should be able to create a society where people are responsible for one Ooanother as well
as towards the community as a whole. This moral responsibility gives rise to the affective bond of the
community. The Lockean great principle of morality is, “to do as one would be done to” (Locke, 1999).
The reason why people unite themselves under a civil society for Locke is to preserve their property. By
property he meant lives, liberties and estates (Locke, 2003). And thus for a government to be good, it
should be able to protect property and punish people who go against the preservation of property. From
the foregoing, good governance is realized when the purpose of the civil society is attained.

4.2 Locke's Idea of Check and Balances

Although, according to Appadorai, the theory of separation of power was clearly formulated for the first
time by Montesquieu in his work The Spirit of Laws (1748), it was achieved only by the inspiration of
John Locke's notion of sovereignty. Locke's political liberalism is characterized by the doctrine that the
legislative, executive and judicial functions of government should be kept separate. Should sovereignty
reside on the legislative or executive? Or should one person be both executive and the legislature?
According to Montesquieu, there can be no liberty if one person becomes both; and for Locke, there will
be abuse of power if the two functions belong to one person.

Although, Locke agrees that there must be a 'supreme power', he however differs from Hobbes who
sees the sovereign as being absolute. Locke places the supreme power in the hands of the legislature
and consequently the majority of the people. According to Enoch Stumpf, Locke's emphasis on the
importance of the division of power is chiefly to ensure that those who execute or administer the laws
do not also make them.( Stumpf, 273). Thus according to Locke, "They may exempt themselves from
obedience to the laws they make both in its making and execution, to their own private advantage.''
(Locke, 273). Therefore, the executive is under the law, and the legislature is not absolute although it is
supreme for legislative power is held as a trust and is therefore only a fiduciary power. This is the
phenomenon that guarantees check and balance in the polis.

4.3 Locke's Idea of Government as the servant of the people

In Locke’s civil society, there is a body of persons to whom all surrender their right partially and not
irrevocably though. This body constitutes the leadership and is saddled with the function and the
responsibility of promoting the common good. Locke states "when men leave the state of nature in
order to enter society, they thereby give up the power of punishment to an executive whom they
appoinr." The crucial fact, which Locke emphasizes, is that, the executive is appointed by the people and
therefore is responsible to them. He states thus: "The whole purpose of government is to make law for
the regulation and preservation of property and for the defense of community against external
aggression, all this for the public good." Locke maintains that, the government so to say is a glorified
secretary. We entrust it with power to do those things, which we find inconvenient or impossible to do
ourselves, just as we appoint a secretary to handle our affairs, if we are busy. But if the secretary
violates our trust, we can fire him, or if the government violates our right by trying to usurp our rightful
authority, we can dismiss it. Ultimately the source of authority lies with the people who appoint the
government. It is merely a means for carrying out their will(Popkin et al 35). Joseph Omoregbe in the
same vein writes:

The main function of government is to enforce morality and protect the

fundamental human right of individual citizens. The government is the
servant of the people and is responsible to the people. The people are
sovereign and they reserve the right to remove any government that
fails to perform its duties (120).
According to Locke, the fundamental precepts of any system of human rights are life, healthy liberty and
property. It is to secure this rights that governments are formed among men. Government always
remains only an agent of society. It is not society itself; it never becomes the people themselves. It is
always an instrument of the people for the protection and promotion of their rights (Ojebun 45).

CHAPTER FIVE

EVALUATION, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Evaluation

As plausible as the political thought of John Locke's political philosophy is, it is never devoid of
loopholes. John Locke’s theory on the creation of government, using the consent of the people as its
foundation, is easy to celebrate at first glance. But, scholars like John T. Bookman challenge Locke’s
seemingly optimistic, people focused theory. In the article, “Locke’s Contract: Would People Consent to
It?,” Bookman points out that in America, Locke’s ideas are still golden, while his reputation everywhere
else in the world has “declined” (357). While Bookman does not intend for his readers to completely
discredit Locke’s political ideas, he does want us to “learn from his [Locke’s] mistakes” and remember
that consent is still an important, core value within “political obligation” (357).

Bookman’s main point is that people would not actually consent to government under the conditions
that Locke set. Bookman argues that Locke’s version of consent requires explicit authorization from each
and every individual, and also requires the opportunity for each individual to stay in the state of nature.
That is where Bookman finds a major flaw in Locke’s political theory. After Locke presents the idea of
consenting to a civil society to get out of the state of nature, he proceeds to explain what that civil
society ought to look like. But, he does not describe what would happen if the majority, or an individual,
decides against creating a government, as there is no “provision in Locke’s theory for withholding
consent to civil society within itself” (359). Bookman goes on to explain that few, if any, individuals have
been asked whether or not they would like to be a part of the civil society they are born in. It seems that
Locke attempts to explain this paradox through what Bookman identifies as tacit consent. Tacit consent
is the idea that if a person actively chooses to reside, participate and enjoy the spoils of a given area,
they have given their tacit consent to abide by the government of said area. With tacit consent, the only
way to express a desire to not consent to that government is to rebel against it, which Bookman points
out as an inherent flaw of Locke’s theory.

Bookman’s argument proved to be very persuasive, in my opinion. Bookman’s argument reveals that a
government under Locke’s social contract would be one that relied heavily, if not fully, on the wishes of
the majority. Even though Locke did not personally endorse or approve majority rule, through his theory
of government, the dangers of majority rule would easily become reality. Complete majority rule during
Locke’s time may have been sufficient. But, for modern-day, I argue that following every idea of the
majority is dangerous, as majorities tend to desire things that benefit them with adverse consequences
for minorities. I appreciated that Bookman made a point to remind the reader that Locke’s political ideas
are still fundamentally important, as they opened doors of political debate and helped guide and shape
future governments. While I can agree that people would not willingly consent to Locke’s contract after
seeing it in practice, Locke’s emphasis on the issue of consent is important and acts as a catalyst for
thinkers to consider alternatives.

Unfortunately, Locke has become regarded as someone whose main theory, the social contract theory,
has been disproven and criticized time after time. Jeremy Waldron argues in Social Contract versus
Political Anthropology that this discredition of Locke’s political ideas stems from the fact that he
“naively presented the social contract as a historical fact” (4). In response to Locke’s presentation of the
social contract as a historical fact, philosopher David Hume, mentioned by Waldron, argued against
Locke’s theory by stating that:

almost all the governments which exist at present [were]...founded

originally, either on usurpation or conquest, or both, without any
pretense of a fair consent, or voluntary subjection of the people” (4).

Waldron further weakens Locke’s social contract theory by asserting that the theory’s fundamental
problem is that it holds no evidence or historical plausibility, reminding the reader that the theory has
faced criticism since its conception. Waldon argues that Locke himself, doubting the legitimacy of the
social contract theory, offered another explanation for the development of political society (8).

Waldron suggests that Locke explicitly “presents two stories about the development of political society”
in the Second Treatise (1). Locke considers political anthropology, “the gradual and indiscernible growth
of modern political institutions, modern political problems and modern political consciousness out of
the simple tribal group,” as an explanation for how society moved from a state of nature to political
development (5). In contrast to Locke’s “first and most familiar” social contract theory, Waldron states
that Locke offers “a much more realistic picture of social and political development than that usually
attributed to him” through political anthropology (4). Instead of political development being birthed
through consensual contract building by the people, Locke’s political anthropology is a consequence of
economics. Similar to the state of nature, this alternative story begins with a patriarchal society that
consisted of social groups under the authority of a father-figure (5). The story goes, as Waldron explains,
that the introduction of money and its widespread use increased “disputes and the temptation to anti-
social behavior” which created a need, instead of a want, for a “conciliatory, adjudicative and punitive
authority” through a more institutionalized society.

It is important to note that while Locke’s theory of contractarianism has many faults, Waldron, makes a
point to add that the theory still holds strength for being a justification for resistance towards any
government that attempts “events like oppression and subjugation,” by removing legitimacy from
absolutist governments (26). With little to no historical evidence to support the idea that governments
are formed under consensual measures, his second explanation, political anthropology, is regarded by
Waldron as the theory with less fault (10).

As identified by Bookman and Waldron, Locke’s writings and ideas seem to consistently have
contradicting, cloudy and complicated natures, which is further emphasized in A. John Simmons' essay
“Political Consent” in the book, The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes, Locke, and
Rousseau. Simmons claims that there are conflicts concerning Locke’s thoughts on rights in a society.

According to Simmons, “Locke suggests that each person gives up two different kinds of rights on
entering civil society (85). The first forfeited right is the ability to be one’s own judge, instead, this power
is given to a common judge. The second forfeited right is “the right of self-government” (85). The
contradiction comes into play as Locke specifies that individuals do in fact get to retain “certain natural
rights” and then later specifies that “all rights are given up to the community” (86). Simmons attempts
to explain this contradiction in two ways: defining the powers of a legitimate government and
identifying the appeal of the consent theory. With the relinquishment of rights upon consenting to a
government, that government has the right to use its political power “only for the purpose of advancing
the good of the people who created them,” if that condition is not met, power shifts back to the people
as government’s power is forfeited and “resistance to them becomes legitimate” (89). Simmons argues
that the appeal to Locke’s theory that may overshadow the inconsistencies is that no person has any
obligation to consent to a state, even if they are born there, which is a “fundamental tenet of Lockean
consent theory” (90). This point also further supports Bookman’s analysis of Locke’s tacit consent.

Similarly to Waldron, Simmons also makes a point to give credit to Locke for creating a theory that has
no legitimacy or moral standing if it acts outside of the approval of those who consent to it, eliminating
any justification for social oppression (89).Simmons, in contrast to Bookman and Waldron, attempts to
somewhat argue in favor of Locke’s theory of consent, highlighting its positive qualities, yet was still
unable to ignore some of the major faults of the Enlightenment Era idea. Considering the question of the
legitimacy of Locke’s social contract theory, I argue that all three scholarly works chip away at its
legitimacy, but the theory still stands.
Nevertheless, I think that if Locke strictly presented this theory as normative, instead of attempting to
defend its real world plausibility, the theory would not have acquired so much critique. As a normative
argument, Locke’s social contract theory is an excellent, thought out story of “what if.”’ Although
Locke’s attempt to defend the theory’s historical and sociological plausibility is weak, it still holds some
legitimacy as a normative argument. However, While Locke’s concept of good governance presented in
his social contract theory may no longer translate well around the world, especially places who reject
democracy, I think that it is a practical explanation of how government began and how it should remain
to serve the people it has jurisdiction over.

5.2 Conclusion

In the entire history of political thought, John Locke is remembered as one of the most influential and
controversial Theorist. Locke's profundity in which he understood the bearing of philosophy on how
men have good reasons to live their lives, is greatly appreciated and commended.

I agree with Mukherjee and Ramaswamy that: " No Political thinker had influenced political theorizing
on two different countries in two different continents as Locke did (208)." Locke was the guiding Father
of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment period particular for Philosophers like Rousseau and Voltaire.
He was acknowledged as the founding father of modern empiricism with David Hume, George Berkeley
and its exponents.

In Conclusion, Just like how Locke was the product at the turning point of English history, it is the
submission of this long essay that if Locke's political philosophy is given practical applicability in a nation
like ours which is suffering from bad leadership, corruption and the like, it will go a long way to
redeming the bad image of Nigeria globally.

5.3 Recommendation

It is the believe of the researcher that for good governance to be entrenched in any given society, the
following recommendation would be of immense benefit:

1. The three arms of government, that is; Executive, Legislators and Judiciary should work hand in
hand with the best intelligent and virtuous members available.

2. The people should be law abiding since John Locke belief that: "Without law or the rule of it, it
becomes difficult if not impossible for any society to fare well." And also, The Leaders should
have a right conception of what leadership entails which service to the people is through
honesty and transparency.
 3. The welfare of the people should be considered since John Locke sees good governance as the
servant of the people and also to protect the fundamental rights of individual citizens.

It is my ardent belief that if all these recommendations are carefully imbibed, especially if the political
view of John Locke are properly implemented in Nigeria, bad leadership, instability, injustice, the
prevalence of other social ills and the issue of corruption will undeniably be confined to the dusbin of
history.

Works Cited

Aristotle. Politics and Poetics. Jowetted J. and Thomas Twining (Trans.). New York: The Viking Press,
1957. Print.

_________. The Nicomachean Ethics. David Rose (Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press, 1984.
Print.

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae : A concise Translation. Timothy McDermott (Trans.). Rome : Book
craft Ltd. 1989. Print.

Anoughlogho, M. The Equality of Mankind According to John Locke. Ph.D Dissertation. Rome : Gregorian
University Press. Print.

Benedictus de Spinoza. Stort Treatise on God, Man and his well being. New York: Russell and Russell.
1963. Print.

Bookman, John. "John Locke's Social Contract : Would People Consent to it.? " In American Journal of
Economic and Sociology. Retrieved from JSTOR_Journals. Com.: Accessed 17-02-2021

De Baron Montesquieu, Charles. The Spirit of Laws. Chicago: Promentheus Books, 2002. Print.

Duko, Maduabuchi.“Justice and the principle of necessity,": Philosophy and Politics: Discourse on values,
politics and power in Africa. Lagos : Malthouse Press. 2015. Print.
Enemuo, Chinedu. "John Locke's Concept of State: A Panacea for the Challenges of Nigeria's
Democracy." In Ogirisi : A new Journal of African Studies. Vol. 15. 2019. Print.

Hegel, George. Reason in History. Hartman, R. (Ed.). New York: Dobbs Mearil. 1953. Print.

_______________. Philosophy of Rights. Knox, T. (Ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. Print.

Hobbes, Thomas. The Leviathan. Huthchulus, Sr. (Ed). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. 1952. Print.

Irele, D. Introduction to Political Philosophy. Nigeria : University of Ibadan Press. 1998. Print.

Kanu, Ikechukwu. "Gender and Good Governance in John Locke." In American Journal of Social Issues &
Humanities, Vol. 2. 2012. Print.

Locke, John. Questions Concerning the Laws of Nature. Robert Horwitz (Ed). New York : Cornell
University Press. 1990. Print.

____________ and Laslett, Peter. Two Treatise of Government. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
1988. Print.

_____________. The Second Treatise of Civil Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration. Oxford :
Blackwell, B. 1948. Print.

______________ and John Yotton. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London: Dent. 1993.
Print.

Lloyd, Thomas. Routledge Philosophy GuideBook to Locke on Government. USA : Chicago Publishing
Press. 1998. Print.

Messner, J. Social Ethics. London : Herder Books. 1949.Print.

Mukhurjee, Sabrata and Ramaswamy, Sushila. A History of Political Thought: Plato to Marx. Delhi: PHI
Learning Ltd. 2011, Print.

Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. New York: Signet Classic, 1999

____________________. The Discourse. Bernard Crick (Ed.). London. Penguin Books. 1974. Print.

Maritain, Jacques. The Conquest of Freedom in Man. Donald, D (Ed). New York: Doubleday. 1962. Print.

Nwekeaku, Charlie. "The Rule of Law, Democracy and Good Governance In Nigeria" In Global Journal of
Political Science and Administration, Vol. 2. Keffi. 2014. Print.

Nwoko, M. Basic Wold Political Theories. Ibadan: Clarerium Press. 1988. Print.

Nnaemeka, Chukwuma and Uhuo Theophilus. "Separation of Power in John Locke : Critique" In
International Journal of Innovative Research & Development, Vol. 7. 2018. Print.
Ojebun, George. Aristotelian Concept of Good Governance. Master Thesis : Nnamdie Azikiwe University.
2010. Print.

Omoregbe, Joseph. Ethics : A Systematic and Historical Study. Lagos: Joja Educational And Research Ltd.
1993. Print.

Obioha, Precious. "John Locke's Idea of Responsive Government : A Review of the Culture of Governance
in Nigeria." In Philosophy and Praxis Journal of the Nigerian Philosophical Association. Akwa, Nigeria.
Vol. 4. 2008, Print.

Okon M. "Gender : The Public and Private. " in Political Theory Today. Cambridge : Polity Press. 1991.
Print.

Ogbuju, Samuel and Eneh, O. " Locating the Reality of the Social Contract Theory and the Failed State
Concept In Nigeria's Governance." In Sustainable Human Development Review Vol. 6. Enugu: University
of Nigeria Press. 2014. Print.

Popkin, Richard and Stroll, Arrum. Philosophy Made Simple. California : Double day. 1993. Print.

Plato. The Republic. Lee, H. (Trans.): Penguin Books. 1956. Print.

Stumpf, Samuel. Philosophy: History and Problems. New York : McGraw Hill. 1989. Print.

Simmon, John. "The Social Contract Theorist : Critical Essay on Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau." Retrieved
from JSTOR_Journals. Com.: Accessed 17-02-2021

St. Augustine. The City of God. Marcus Dods (Trans.). New York : Modern Library. 1950. Print.

The FamousPeople. "John Locke Biography." Retrieved from The_FamousPeople.com. Accessed 12- 01-
2021.

Thesaurus Dictionary "Social Contract" Retrieved from www.freethesaurus/social_contract.com.

Accessed 16-05-2020

Waldron, Jeremy. "John Locke : Social Contract Versus Political Anthropology. " The Review of Politics.
Retrieved from JSTOR_Journals. Com.: Accessed 17-02-2021

Wiser, J. Political Philosophy of the search for order. USA : Prentice -Hall, 1983. Print.

Wikipedia. "Social Contract." Retrieved from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract. Accessed

21-05-2020

Walsh, Martin. History of Philosophy. London. : Cassell Publishers. 1985. Print.

Wolff, Robert. In Defense of Anarchism. Oakland : University of California Press. Print. 1993.