CHAPTER THREE

AN EXPOSITION OF JOHN LOCKE'S CONCEPT OF POPULAR

SOVEREIGNTY

3.1 A BIOGRAPHY OF JOHN LOCKE

John Locke was an English Philosopher and Physician, widely regarded

as one of the most influential of enlightenment thinkers and commonly known as

the "Father of Liberalism" (Hirshmarm 79). Considered one of the first of the

British empiricists, following the tradition of Sir Francis Bacon, he is equally

important to social contract theory. His works greatly affected the development

of epistemology and political Philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, many Scottish enlightenment thinkers, as well as the

American revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal

theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence (Becker

27). Locke's theory of mind is often cited as the origin of modem conceptions of

identity and the self, figuring prominently in the work of later philosophers such

as David Hume, Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant.

Locke was the first to define the self through a continuity of the human

mind. To him, the mind was a blank slate or tabular rasa. Contrary to Cartesian

philosophy based on pre-existing concepts, he maintained that we are born

without innate ideas, and that knowledge is instead determined only by

experience derived from sense perception (Baird 527-29). This is now known as

empiricism. An example of Locke's belief in empiricism can be seen in his

quote in his work An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, "whatever

1
. I write, as soon as I discover it not to be true, my hand shall be the forwardest to

throw it into the fire" (47). This shows the ideology of science in his

observations in that something must be capable of being tested repeatedly

and that nothing is, except from being disproven. Challenging the works of

others, Locke is said to had distinguished the method of introspection, or

observing the emotions and behaviours of one's self (Baldwin 117).

Locke was born on 29th August, 1632 in a small thatched cottage by the

church in Wrington, Somerset, about 12 miles from Bristol. He was baptised the

same day. Soon after Locke's birth, the family moved to the market town of

Penstord, about seven miles south of Bristol, where Locke grew up in a rural

Tudoer house in Bulluton. In 1647, Locke was sent to the prestigious

Westminster School in London under the sponsorship of Alexander Popham, a

member of parliament and his father's former commander. After completing

studies there, he was admitted to Christ Church, Oxford, in the autumn of 1652

at the age of twenty. The Dean of the College at the time was John Owen, Vice

Chancellor of the University.

Although a capable student, Locke was irritated by the undergraduate

curriculum of the time. He found the works of modem philosophers, such as

Rene Descartes more interesting than the classical material taught at the

University. Through his friend Richard Lower, whom he knew from the

Westminster school, Locke was introduced to medicine and the experimental

philosophy being pursued at other universities and in the Royal Society, which

he eventually became a member. Locke was awarded Bachelor's Degree in

2
February 1655 and a Master Degree in June 1658 (Uzgalis 91). He obtained a

bachelor of medicine in February 1675, having studied medicine extensively

during his time at Oxford and worked with such noted scientists and thinkers as

Robert Boyle, Thomas Willis, Robert Hooke and Richard Lower.

In 1666, he met Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Early of Shaflesbury, who had

come to oxford seeking treatment for a liver infection. Cooper was impressed with

Locke and persuaded him to become part of his routine (81). Locke had been

looking for a career and in 1667 moved into Shaftesbury's home at Exeter House in

London, to serve as Lord Ashley's personal physician. In London, he resumed his

medical studies under the tutelage of Thomas Sydenham. Sydenham had a major

effect on Locke's natural philosophical thinking; an effect that would become evident

in Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Locke's medical knowledge

was put to test when Shaftesbury's liver infection became life-threatening. Locke

coordinated the advice of several physicians and was probably instrumental in

persuading Shaftesbury to undergo surgery (then life-threatening itself) to remove the

Cyst. Shaftesbury survived and prospered, crediting Locke with saving his life.

During this time, Locke served as Secretary of the Board of Trade and

Plantations and Secretary to the Lords proprietor of Carolina, which helped to shape

his ideas on international trade and economics. Shaftesbury, as a founder of the Whig

movement, exerted great influence on Locke's political ideas. Locke became

involved in politics when SJ,laftesbury became Lord Chancellor in 1672. Following

ShaftesbU1y's fall from favour in 1675, Locke spent some time travelling across

France as tutor and medical attendant to Caleb Banks. He returned to England in

3
1679 when Shaftesbury's political fortunes took a brief positive turn. Around this

time, most likely at Shaftesbury's prompting, he composed the bulk of the Two

Treatises of Government. While it was once thought that Locke wrote the Treatises to

defend the Glorious Revolution of 1688, recent scholarship has shown that the work

was composed before this date. The work is now viewed as a more general argument

against absolute monarchy (particularly as espoused by Robert Filmer and Thomas Hobbes)

and for individual consent as the basis of political legitimacy. Although Locke was

associated with the influential Whigs, his ideas about natural rights and government are today

considered quite revolutionary for that period in English history.

Locke fled to the Netherlands in 1683, under strong suspicion of involvement in

the Ryle-House plot, although there is little evidence to suggest that lie was directly

involved in the scheme. The philosopher and novelist Rebecca Newberger Goldstein

argues that during his five years in Holland, Locke chose his friends from among the

same freethinking members of dissenting protestant groups as Spinoza’s small group of

loyal confidents. (Baruch Spinoza had died in 1677). Locke almost certainly met men in

Amsterdam who spoke of the ideas of that “renegade Jew who insisted on identifying

himself through his religion of reason alone. While she says that Locke’s strong

empiricist tendencies would have declined him to read a grandly metaphysical work such

as Spinoza’s Ethics, in other ways he was deeply receptive to Spinoza’s ideas, most

particularly to the rationalist’s well thought out argument for political and religious

tolerance and the necessity of the separation of the church and state” (Rebecca 260-61).

In the Netherlands, Locke had time to return to his writing, spending a great deal

of time re-working the Essay and composing the Letter on Toleration. He did not return

home until after the Glorious Revolution Locke accompanied May II back to England in

4
 1688. The bulk of Locke’s publishing took place upon his return from exile; his

aforementioned Essay Concerning Human Understanding, the Two Treaties of Civil

Government and A Letter on Toleration all appearing in quick succession. Locke’s close

friend lady Masham invited him to join her at the Masham’s country home in Essex.

Although his time there was marked by variable health from asthma attacks, he nevertheless

became an intellectual hero of the Whigs. During this period, he discussed matters with such

figures as John Dryden and Isaac Neuton. He died on 28' h October, 1704, and is buried in the

churchyard of the village of High Laver, east of Harlow in Essex, where he had lived in the

household of Sir Francis Masham since 1691. Locke never married, nor had children (“John

Locke”-https://en.m-wikipedia.org>wiki.).

3.2 UNDERSTANDING THE NOTION OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY

The concept sovereignty, once relatively uncontested, has recently become a

matter of contention. Interestingly, it is worthy of note that the foundation of modem

democracy is based on the concept of sovereignty especially popular sovereignty. The

basic principle of democracy is that the ultimate authority resides in the masses and this

is what popular sovereignty too stresses. Bryce considers it as “... the basis and

watchword of democracy” (143).

Etymologically, sovereignty as a term is derived from the Latin word superamus

meaning power (Ray 177). The word itself implies that the State enjoys supreme power

over its citizens and has authority to enforce obedience to its laws and regulations. This is

a sovereign power of a State which provides it the power to do things according to its

- Wishes or as Jellinek defined it “... that characteristic of the State in virtue of which it

cannot be legally bound except by its own will or limited by any other than itself”

(Garner 147).

5
 Accordingly, Hinsley gives a classical definition of sovereignty as “... the idea

that there is a final and absolute political authority in the political community . . . and no

final absolute authority exists elsewhere” (26). Sovereignty as observed is the legal

authority which is supreme by nature or may be defined as supreme “authority” within a

territory. The term “authority” comprises of power to command, backed by legitimacy.

Power gives competence to rule against the will of the people but when it gets augmented

with legitimacy, people accept and follow the laws spontaneously considering it in the

welfare of the society. Thus, people obey the “will” of the authority but when sometimes

they ignore or challenge it, they are liable to punishment, implying that when legitimacy

fails, power controls the situation. A holder of sovereignty derives authority for some

mutually acknowledged source of legitimacy like natural law, a divine mandate,

hereditary law, or the constitution.

The term “legal” associated with sovereignty means a sovereign has the authority to make laws and

everyone without exception, needs to follow it. Sovereignty being “supreme” implies that it is supreme not

only to the other agencies or associations in the state but also to the custom, the norms of the society and

even to the natural and divine law. Sovereignty includes various important principles or laws which are

essential for its legitimate power-exercise over people. In the sphere of sovereignty, when one owes his duty

to the State, the State in turn is expected to provide complete protection to his life and property (Gauba 28).

Thus, in sovereignty, there exists a logical relationship between duty and right. Sovereignty being

“supreme”, it is not still employed without use of rationality and it gives due regards to custom and social

values. All these factors give sovereignty its legitimacy otherwise it would perish in due course of time.

Thus, sovereignty though by nature is absolute and unlimited, is by no means an arbitrary power or is

coercive by nature. The concept sovereignty is here looked at under threeTheories, the Monistic theory,

the Pluralistic theory and the Popularistic theory (which forms the basis of this discourse).

6
 3.2.1 Monistic Theory of Sovereignty

This theory emphasizes the vesting of supreme power in a single central authority which is bestowed

the power to make supreme laws. Jean Bodin, an exponent of this theory, in his Six Books of the

Commonwealth, puts sovereignty as “the absolute and perpetual power of commanding in a State, as the

supreme power over citizens and subjects unrestrained by law” (qtd Gauba 30). The word absolute

signifies that a sovereign is free of obligations and conditions and is not bound either by law of his

predecessor or his own subject. The sovereign has the authority to matte, alter them and is under the

command of no authority. The subjects under this theory have no right to consent or to revolt. Similarly,

Thomas Hobbes in his Leviatham describes the situation thus:

No place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no culture of
the Earth; no Navigation ... no Commodious Building... no account of Time; no Arts; no
letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and
life of man; solitary poor, nasty, brutish and short (89).

Hobbes considers sovereignty as an essential need to escape this state of nature which he describes .as

“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” and one which leads to war of all against all. To escape this

insecurity, i-Hobbes recommends absolute sovereignty which according to many may consider dangerous

but its positive aspects overshadows the negative ones. Hobbes states that “and though of so unlimited a

power, man may fancy many evil consequences, yet the consequences of which is perpetual war of every

man against his neighbor, are much worse” (144-45). Man, to avoid the insecure state of nature, enters

into a contract and sets up a civil society. Here, the citizens surrender their power and liberty to a person or

group of people whom they authorise to govern them. This authorised person becomes the sovereign and the

rest, his subjects. His power is irrevocable. Once people authorise a sovereign to rule them, they lose all

their power. His actions can never be illegal since he himself is the spring of the laws and laws are subject to

his interpretation. His power is indivisible as he admits no co-ordinate or even sub- ordinate authority. To

this theoiy therefore, sovereignty caiuiot be described as absolute with reference to the people.

7
 The Pluralistic theory of Sovereignty

Proponents of this theory do not believe that the State is the single source of law or power. For them,

the State is a social institution among various other associations rather than a sovereign entity. They do not

believe, as the monists did, in the unity of life. As for them, life is multilayered and each layer of it is

important or it may be said that they stress upon the plural dimension of life. They consider variety of

association as one of the basic qualities of modern society or society for them is a web of associations. Each

association performs certain functions which correspond to different needs of man in modern, society. Coker

states the function of these associations in the following words:

.. the state is confronted not merely by unassociated individuals but also by

other associations evolving independently, eliciting individual loyalists, better
adapted than the state- because of their select membership, their special forms
of organisation an action — for serving various social needs (508).

This implies that each of these associations operating in their respective domain should have

functional freedom. That is to say, the pluralists advocate for group interest and autonomy of different

associations and groups like educational, economic, religious among others. They also hold that these groups

are natural and spontaneous and not creation of the state (Ray 110). For them, groups “... should be

recognized as possessing distinct natural co-operate personalities independent of any creative act on the part

of the state” (Garner 61). They do not consider the State to be all omnipotent, but for them, it is one of the

several associations present in the society. Rather, the joint venture of people’s association to sovereignty

makes it strong and more effective in its functioning for the welfare of the citizens. Thus, the State should not

monopolize power. Harold Laski puts it: “but because society is federal, authority must be federal also.

Power should be divided among groups and each allowed to legislate for itself within the ambit of the

general level at which the society broadly aims” (54).

The greatest contribution of the pluralists is their aim of decentralization of authority. They argue that

the centralization of autonomy stressed by the monists is not morally correct since it forbids one of self

8
expression by denying any role in state organization. They aim for a democracy with active participation of

groups in decision making process, giving maximum opportunity for self expression of individual needs and

expression. Thus pluralism advocates for giving importance and autonomy to associations present in the

society. It becomes worthy of note that a sovereign state must be subject to limitations for democracy to

prevail. It is so because the state should function as per the needs of its citizens and therefore, the citizens

should actively take part in making sovereignty more effective and more powerful in discharging its duties.

The notion of popular sovereignty

Popular sovereignty or sovereignty of people’s rule is the principle that the authority of a State and its

government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, through their elected representatives (rule

by the people), who are the source of all political power. It is closely associated with social contract

philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Here, the people have the

final say in government decisions. Benjamin Franklin expressed the concept when lie wrote, “in free

government, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns” (398). In essence, the

concept of popular sovereignty means giving ultimate sovereignty to the people. The people are the real

sovereign and it is they who assign duties to different agents viz kings, who are subject to the sovereign

people. This sovereignty resides in the whole community and not in an individual or a group (Sabine 166).

The king in this way becomes as agent and an executive head of the people and works for their betterment.

One of the important proponents of popular sovereignty is Cicero of ancient Rome, who believed that “The

common wealth is the people’s affair” (qtd in Fikret and Kamil 166). This implies that the authority to rule

comes from the people and therefore, it should work for the people and serve them to the best of its strength.

The idea of popular sovereignty in true sense gained ground with the revolt against absolute monarchy,

when lot of civil and international warfare started by the second half of the sixteenth century after been

influenced by Monarchomac who upheld the sovereignty of people against the sovereignty of the Icings.

These thoughts were expressed in the writings of the Monarchomac or anti monarchial writers like Marsilius

9
of Padua (1270-1340), William of Ockham (c1287-1347), George Buchanan (1506-1582), among others. They

conceived that sovereignty originally belonged to the people and it is they who are the source of power. Marsilius

held:

The whole cooperation of citizens, or its weightier part, either malies law itself, directly or
entrusts this task to some person or persons, who are not and cannot be the legislator in the
absolute sense, but only for specific matters, and temporary, and by virtue of the authority of
the prime legislator (59).
Hotmañ gives a systematic explanation of popular sovereignty. He considers that a lcing rules by the

consent of the people. There exists a contract between the King and the people, the IUng to rule justly and

the people to obey him as long as he remains just. It holds that people are above the King as they existed

before the King and they exist without the King, but the reverse is not possible. Since power comes from the

people, people are the real sovereignty (qtd in Sharma 56).

Popular sovereignty in its modern sense dates to the social contracts school represented by Thomas

Hobbes (1588 — 1679), John Locke (1632-1704), and Jean- Jacques Rousseau (1712-1779), author of de

Social Contract, a prominent political work that clearly highlighted the ideals of “general will” and further

matured the idea of popular sovereignty. The central tenet is that legitimacy of rule of law is based on the

consent of the governed. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau were thus the most influential thinkers of this school,

all postulating that individuals choose to enter into a social contract with one another, thus voluntarily

giving up some of their natural freedom in return for protection from dangers derived from the freedom of

others. Whether men were seen as naturally more prone to violence and rapine (Hobbes) or cooperation and

kindness (Rousseau), the idea that a legitimate social order emerges only when the liberties and duties are

equal among citizens binds the social contract thinkers to the concept of popular sovereignty (Fritz 290).

According to Lutz Donald in his Popular Consent and Popular Control. Whig Political Theory in the Early

State Constitution remarks that:

To speak of popular sovereignty is to place ultimate authority in the people there are a
variety of ways in which sovereignty may be expressed. It may be immediate in the sense that
the people make the law themselves, or mediated through representatives who are subject to
election and recall; it may be ultimate in the sense that the people have a negative or veto over
10
 legislation, or it may be something much less dramatic. In short, popular sovereignty covers a
multitude of institutional possibilities. In each case, however, popular sovereignty assumes the
existence of some form of popular consent... (38).

This sums that for every political action, the consent of the people is the determinant of whether such

action is legitimate or not. Having understood the general idea of sovereignty and particularly that of John

Locke, we would further step into what concerns this work most, the idea of John Locke on the popular

sovereignty.

JOHN LOCKE’S NOTION OF TRUE POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY

In his The Second Treatise on Civil Government John Locke attempt to clarify on the concept

sovereignty and also establish a more people based authority in leadership, so that there is no confusion

between who holds supreme power between the lying and the ruled. Locl‹e rebutted the idea of an absolute

monarch malting it absolutely clear that the Ining ruled only with the consent of the people. When speaking

of the idea of Commonwealth, Locke remarks thus: “In all Kingdoms and Commonwealths. . . whether some few

or a multitude Govern the Common-wealth: yet still the authority ... is the only Right, and natural Authority

of a supreme father” (134). Therefore, when people form governments, that they be a monarchy or

democracy, that government must have the authority of a supreme father which maintains the ultimate

authority of the government.

Although, Locke was against the divine rights of the King and thus rejected absolute sovereignty as

propounded by Thomas Hobbes, he further noted that: “...Adam had not, either by natural right of fatherhood

or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his children, nor dominion over the world, as

pretended. .. if he had, his heirs had no right to it” (7). Locke defined the state of nature and the natural state of

humans as free, that men are naturally, in a state of perfect freedom. He explained that the state of nature has

“a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone and reason, which is that law. Teaches all mankind,

who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health,

liberty or possessions.” (9) For Locke, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is a
11
state of perfect freedom, to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit,

within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. It

is also a state of “equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than

another” and also being “equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and

master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him,

by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty” (9). Locke’s

argument presupposes that all men are equal hence they have rights which are anterior to those given them by

society, and since they are not given to them by society, they cannot be taken away by society either.

However, the state of nature requires a common judgement authority to regulate all men in the state of

nature.

Sovereignty, for Locke therefore, becomes a creation of the people who contract with one another to

form civil society and who only entrust executive authority to a government conditionally. For Locke, the

only condition for which a government is formed is for protection of life and property, welfariism of the

people, among others. This is the basic condition upon which when people entrust their sovereign power to a

king, they expect it reciprocated and at breach of this trust, the King stands deposed and can be revolted

against. His emphasis is that the natural condition of mankind is individual freedom and no person, not even

one’s own offspring is entirely subject to arbitrary rule. In his The Second Treatise on Civil Government,

John Locke maintains that: “...This power so little belongs to the father by any peculiar right of nature, but

only as he is guardian of his children, that when he quits his care of them he loses his power over them” (37).

This then supports the argument that the sovereign powers of a King are valid only if he continues to

serve the people in the capacity of a king in respect to the ideals of the contract so established. The people

are bound to obey the King but he also owe the people a duty to protect their lives and property, ensure

wellbeing of the people, among others. It is the basic reason upon which the social contract (in which the

people hand their powers to a sovereign) is formed — for a common good. But very intei’esting1y,

12
Locke does not strip the people of their powers absolutely. They still retain some level of sovereignty which

makes them possible to withdraw a leader or revolt against him when’ he acts contrary to the contract. It is

by freewill that the people repose their powers into a certain ruler and so they still have such will to retrieve

the powers of a sovereign when deemed necessary. In fact, Lock notes that:

there can be but one supreme power, which is the legislative, to which all the rest are and
must be subordinate, yet the legislative being only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends,
there remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they
find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them. For all power given with trust for
the attaining an end being limited by that end, whenever, that end is manifestly neglected or
opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of
those that gave it, who may place anew where they shall think best for their safety and
security. And thus, the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves
from the attempts and designs of anybody, even of their legislators whenever they shall be so
foolish or so wicked as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the
subject (83).

Locke continued thus:

For no man or society of man having a power to deliver up their preservation or consequently
the means of it, to the absolute will and arbitrary dominion of another, whenever anyone shall
go about to bring them into such a slavish condition, they will always have a right to preserve
what they have not a power to part with, and rid themselves of those who invade this
fundamental, sacred, and unalterable law of self- preservation for which they entered into a
society. And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves
from the attempts and designs of anybody, even of their legislators whenever they shall be so
foolish or so wicked as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the
subject. For no man or society of men having a power to deliver up their preservation, or
consequently the means of it, to the absolute will and arbitrary dominion of another,
whenever anyone shall go about to bring them into such a slaving condition, they will always
have a right to preserve what they have not a power to part with, and rid themselves of those
who invade this fundamental, sacred, and unalterable law of self-preservation for which they
entered into a society. And thus the community may be said in this respect to be always the
supreme power, but not as considered under any form of government, because this power of
the people can never take place till the government be dissolved (83).

It can therefore, be said that the power resident in the people is unchangeable, unalterable and as

well, supreme, but can only be true when exercised. In this line of thought, Locke therefore, considers it

obligatory for the people to rise against a leader who breaches trust in respect to the social contract (the

civil government formed) and man’s freedom and liberty by his nature are inalienable and so, he stands the

13
opportunity to form another govei-riment, handling his sovereignty to a new leader for a common good.

Locke therefore, advocates for a central authority in his theory of sovereignty but does not, in any way,

hand him absolute powers of leadership. He retains much power in the people so that the King is watched

against becoming tyrannical or arbitrary.

MAJOR THEMES IN LOCKEAN IDEA OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY

John Locke's idea of the popular sovereignty suggests themes which are central to it, these include:

the human nature, state of nature, the need for a contract, consent of the governed, equality limitations of

power, the moral right to revolution.

The Human Nature

Audi Robert defines human nature as “a quality or group of qualities, belonging Jq all and only humans; that

explain the kind of being we are ... We are also all both animals and rational being(at least potentially),

and rational might explain the special features we have that other kinds of beings ... do not have” (398).

Summing from this background, Locke presents his conception of the human nature as details contained in

his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. He assumed that human beings are naturally endowed with

certain basic instincts such as decency, goodness, social inclination, and capability of ruling themselves.

Unlike Hobbes, Locke held that men are capable, efficient, and considerate beings. In fact, to Locke, man is

quite dependable and rational. Locke believed that man is not as selfish and anti-social as portrayed by

Hobbes.

He held that man is a social and rational being capable of and interested in living in a society. It is not

a rule but only an exception that man is selfish, competitive, arid aggressive. On the contrary, men are

naturally able to govern themselves by the law of nature, or reason (16). According to Locke, men are born

free and equal. Their freedom is governed on the basis of reason, which guides them how to govern

themselves. Men become morally equal as long as the reason in them recognizes the natural laws. Human

14
beings are disposed to be rational in their character, because of the presence of reason, which is a dominant

factor. He maintained that men are moral because they are by nature rational and can therefore; discover how

they ought to behave. Thus, Locke sounds Aristotelian in recognizing rationality as an essence of human

beings. With the help of reason, human beings learn to control emotions, anger, love and so on. Since men are

social and good, they possess sympathy, love and affection towards one another. Consequently, for Locke, the

first instinct of man was to live in peace and harmony with others. To quote Locke in this context: “men living

together according to reason, without a common superior on Earth, with authority to judge between them is

properly the state of nature” (16).

The State of Nature

Locke endorsed the view of Hobbes that before man’s entry into the civil state, he was living in the

state of nature. However, unlike Hobbes, he held that man was living in the state of nature where there was

law, order, peace, and property. Like Hobbes, Locke too discussed the state of nature in order to show that

the political power is derived from the state of nature. Although, both Hobbes and Locke held contrasting

views with regard to the conditions prevailing in the state of nature, Locke began his political argument with

a profoundly paradoxical assertion, namely, the political power which is derived from the unpolitical state.

To quote Locke’s words:

To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what
state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and
dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of
nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man (8).

From the above quotation, it is very clear that the political power originates from and culminates in the

state of nature. Locke held that to understand the nature of right as a political power, and the original source

from which it is derived, it is necessary to understand the state in which people were living. According to him,

such a state is a state of perfect equality and freedom in which people can guide their own actions, and

dispose of their possessions within the bounds of the law of nature, without seeking or depending upon the

15
will of any other man. Locke wrote:

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, and the use of same faculties,
should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection (8).

Locke opined that the state of nature is a state of equality that promotes the equality of right and

freedom. In short, it is a state of equality. The power and jurisdiction in the state of nature is reciprocal to each

other. Since all men are equal by birth all of them have equal powers (rights) to exercise. So, one has to get

recognition of the state to exercise power. For example, “A” can exercise his power as long as the other

members in the state of nature recognize it. Similar is the case with every member of the state of nature. He

fiirther stated that in the state of nature, no individual is superior or inferior to any other individual in terms of

exercising one’s power, for all aide created by Clod. Since God created all men, everybody has equal right to

make use of the nature and faculties. Reference to the state of nature, Locke further held that:

Though this be a State of liberty, yet it is not a state of license; though man in that State have an uncontrollable
liberty to dispose of his person or possessions yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any
creature in his possession (9)

Locke clearly pictured that the state of nature is State of liberty, but it is not a state of license. The

point he wanted to drive home was that although man is endowed with uncontrollable liberty, he is not

authorized to destroy himself or any creature in his possession. Thus his uncontrollable liberty is cheated.

The state of nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every the freedom to do whatever one

wants to do, but to act within the framework of the law of nature. Therefore, he defended personal

independence and freedom as man’s fundamental right. Thus, the law of nature is nothing but the reason. In

short, reason teaches entire human mind to consult the fact that all human beings are equal and independent

before indulging in any type of action. Thus, Locke opined that since all men are equal and independent, no

one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, and possessions. In a way, he demolished the view that

some men are superior to some other men. Indirectly, he opposed Aristotle’s master-slave distinction. If all

16
men are created by the same God and equal to one another in all respect, then no one has to obey the dictates

of the other. This amounts to saying that, no man has a right to coerce or dominate any other man in the state

of nature. LocI‹e emphasized that everyman possesses an equal right to his natural freedom without being

subjected to the wiI1 or authority of any other man. The state of nature, for Locke, was not a state of war of

all against all as advocated by Hobbes. He held that the state of nature was not a state of constant and

continuous war because of law of nature that governed the state of nature. To quote Locke here:

And that all men may be restrained front invading others’ rights, and from doing hurt to one
another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all
mankind, the execution of the law of nature is in that state put into every man's hand whereby
everyone has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its
violation (10).

Locke proclaimed that although the state of nature is not a state of war because it has a law of nature

to govern it, yet the law of nature needs some authorities to enforce it. He himself raised a question that,

suppose there is no authority in the state of nature to enforce the law of nature, what will happen to such a

law? He answered that such a law would become vain. This means that some authority is needed to execute

the low. Therefore, Locke held that the execution of the law of nature is put into every man’s hand. In other

words, all the subjects have the right to execute the law of nature. In such a state, everyone has a right to

punish the transgressors or the violators of the law. The punishment should be severe to deter others from

committing the similar offences by the same person as well as by others. The punishment given to the

transgressors should teach a lesson for others and hinder the violation of similar kind.

In a way, Locke advocated deterrent theory of punishment. This is a right of punishment and not

merely a right of self defence. If it were merely a right of self- defence, no one in the state of nature could

rightly use force except against persons invading his own rights. But what he wanted to envisage is that

everyone in the state of nature has a right to punish anyone who launches an offence against the law of

nature, whether he is himself the victim of that offence or not and this is possible only when all people are

endowed with equal rights in a state of nature.

17
 According to Locke, the right to property in its wider sense refers to right to life, liberty, and

property. But in its narrower sense, refers to property alone. It is man’s right to dispose of himself and of

what he sets aside for his own use in whatever ways seemed best to him. The right to life, property, and

possession is limited only by the obligation to respect the same right in others and it cannot be further

limited except with the consent of its possessors. The law of nature allows interference only with aggressors,

it does not allow the generality of men to require more of any man than he should respect the law, which

means only that he should respect in others the freedom that he claims for himself. The whether they like it

or not, is not a law made by men. It is not even the undeliberate product of their living in society with one

another. It is not custom or convention but the law of reason, which defines the rights and duties that

constitute and sustain freedom. The law of nature is therefore, the law of freedom. It is a law that men do

not make but only discover.

Though Locke did not directly criticize Hobbes, he refuted some of the ideas advocated by Hobbes.

According to Hobbes, the state of nature is a war of all against all. Locke held that the state of nature is one

of “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation” (15). This is defended on the ground that the law of

nature provides a complete equipment of natural rights and duties. But the decent of the state of nature is the

absence of impartial magistrates, written law, and fixed penalties, to give effect to the rules of right. In the

state of nature, every man must protect his own interests as best as he can, but this is possible only in a

government with limited sovereignty. Locke held that “all prices and rules of independent government are in

a state of nature” (11). What is inferred from this statement of Locke is that the state of nature requires a

common judge with authority to regulate all men in the state of nature. Therefore, the state of all men in the

state of nature is one and the same.

18
 The Need for a Contract

Locke made it very clear that if all men were naturally 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. It is possible if

and only if there is a mutual agreement among the individuals to join and unite into a community for their

comfortable, safe and peaceable life on the earth. Locke himself raised the following question:

If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said, if he be absolute lord of his own
person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to nobody, why will he part with
his freedom, this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other
power? (69).

The question that arises is: if men are born free, how do they agree to become subjects of a

government? If the state of nature was a state of peace, what was the need for a state by contract, Locke

answered that even though the state of nature is a state of peace and the individuals enjoy such a right, the

enjoyment of such a right is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasions of others. If all men are

kings in the state of nature, then there is no inequality among the individuals. Consequently, all are treated

equally in their claim to rights of all sorts. However, in the absence of a strict observer of equity and justice

in the state of nature, there is thus no guarantee for the individuals' enjoyment of property. Thus, a sense of

uncertainty and insecurity prevails over the individuals. The rights in the state of nature are suffering from

certain illusions and inconveniences. In the state of nature, the peace was not secure and constant. The state

of nature is full of fears and continual dangers. The individual is not sure of the moral obligation of his

actions, and there is no one to guide him. The corrupt, vicious, and degenerate men might at any time

disturb the peace. Thus there is a continual danger for peace. In other words, the so-called peace is not

secured and there is no framed law to control and punish the corrupt, vicious, and degenerate men. To quote

Locke here:

The great and chief end, therefore of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting
themselves under government, is the preservation of their property; to which in the state of
nature there are many things wanting ... an established, settled known law, received and
allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, a known and indifferent
 judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law, power to
back and support the sentence when right, and to give due execution (70).

By citing above, Locke concluded that the state of nature suffered from three ills. They are: (i) laws

are not clearly defined (ii) there is no common authority to enforce the laws and rights (iii) there is no

recognized judge to settle disputes, if any, among individuals. In other words, there is no legislature to

make laws, no executive to implement the laws and no judiciary to interpret the laws. Thus, the three major

parts of a government are missing in the state of nature. According to Locke, it is the internal and inherent

desite of the society to establish a social contract. Locke identified the following reasons for opting for a

contract by the people.

a. Individual’s inability to keep his natural rights against injustice

b. Since everybody is competent to punish the other for breach of law, the confusion

is found to originate in the state of nature

c. Since all are sole interpreters of law, inconveniences and confusions are bound to

arise in the state of nature.

Locke’s emphasis is that the people in the state of nature have to avert a war which is round the

corner and which might break forth at anytime. To avoid conditions of continual fear’ of war and its

danger, people opted out of the state of nature and entered into a contract. By the contract among

themselves, people created a civil society or the state. This social contract according to Locke, is all to

all. The individuals did not surrender all the rights they enjoyed in the state of nature. This contract is for a

limited and specific purpose. In fact, natural rights, that is, the right of interpreting and enforcing the laws.

The people surrendered their right to community as a whole and not to an individual or an assembly of

men. To Locke, man is created with such natural tendency that convenience and inclination always

attracted him and drove him into society. Since every man is created by God, no one is superior or inferior

to anyone. Being creations of the one and the same God, they are all equal in every respect. The things that
are found wanting in a state of nature are an established, settled, known law; a known and impartial judge

with authority; power to back and support the sentence, when right, and give it due execution. In other

words, although people are living and leading a peaceful life, there is no authorized and authoritative

element to solve the social disputes, which may originate at anytime.

In Locke’s estimation, people can have a political or civil society only when they surrender their executive power of

the law of nature to a person or a group of persons. Whenever people enter into such a political or civil society, which is

under the control of one body politic, or one supreme government, to safeguard their property, they have to

surrender their natural rights, which they enjoyed in the law of nature. Man gives up his freedom and power, because

the enjoyment of it is very uncertain and constantly exposed to invasion of others.

Consent of the Governed

Since, all men are equal in the state of nature; there is no strict observer of equity and justice,

consequently, the enjoyment of property that they possess can only exist when men agree to form a

government. They cannot be forced into swearing fealty or pledging submission; it must be voluntary.

Locke states thus:

Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put
out this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent,
which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their
comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their
properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it (54).

For Locke therefore, a government can only be constitutional when it emanates from the voluntary

and willing consent of the people. In his The Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke puts it thus:

When any number of men has so consented to make one community or government, they
are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority has a
right to act and conclude the rest. For, when any number of men have, by the consent of
every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community one body,
with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the
majority” (55).

The issue of consent deriving from the need for the departure from the State of nature then
becomes the central theme or underlying principle upon which a social contract is formed, so that common

good is pursued.

John Locke believed that God created all men equal. When they are born into this world, they have

the same privileges and advantages as all other men and should seek to preserve the lives of others if they

want their own preserved. In his The Second Treatise on Civil Government, he noted that God is the only

one that may bestow some differences upon men: “Age or virtue may give men a just precedency;

excellency of parts and merit may place others above the common level: birth may subject some, and

alliance or benefits others” (54). However, all men still have their “natural freedom, without being

subjected to the will or authority of any other man (54). Even when men elect to place power in the hands

of one or multiple authorities, there is still a degree of equality because reason dictates that the authorities

should not exercise arbitrary and absolute power over them. Locke concluded thus: it is a: “state of

equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another” (8).

Limitations of Power

In his The Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke advocated for a limited sovereign state, for

reason and experience guided him to envisage the view that political absolutism is not tenable. For Locke, a

good state should exist for the people who form it and not vice versa. It is to be based on the consent of the

majority, subject to the constitution and to the rule of law. It is a limited state in the sense that its power is

derived from the people and is held in the form of a trust. To quote Loclre in precise terms:

For all power given with trust for the attaining an end limited by that end, whenever that end is
manifestly neglected or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the
hands of those who may place it anew where they shall think best for their safety and security. And thus the
community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of
anybody, even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish or wicked as to lay and carry on
designs against the liberties and properties of the subject (82).

Locke clearly argued that the state must deal with matters strictly political in nature and has no

warrant to interfere or demand more powers on the pretext of public safety or welfare:
 For no man or society of men having a power to deliver up their preservation, or
consequently the means of it, to the absolute will and arbitrary dominion of another,
whenever anyone shall go about to bring them into such a slavish condition, they will
always have a right to preserve what they have not a power to part with, and to rid
themselves of those who invade this fundamental, sacred, and unalterable law of self
preservation for which they entered into society. And thus, the community may be said in
this respect to be always the supreme... (83).

According to Locke, the supreme power resides in the people and the community has the

inalienable right to institute and dismiss of any government if it violates trust. To sum it, Locke is of the

opinion that government is bound by certain limitations or restrictions. They are:

i. The government has no right (whatsoever), to destroy, enslave or designedly

impoverish the subjects

ii. The government should govern not by unknown laws but by laws that have been

promulgated or are known.

iii. The government has no right to snatch rightly earned property of any of his

subjects without their consent because it does not stand for snatching the property

but for preserving that

iv. The government cannot abrogate the natural rights of the individuals

v. The state should not act autocratically, but on the other hand, it should function

for promoting utility.

From the above, it is understood that Locke advocated what can be best described as a “limited

agreement” in which the powers are been delegated to the representative who is guided by the

electorates. In other words, the people remain a watchdog of the representatives so that government is

periodically checked and assessed when necessary.

The Moral Right to Revolution

The obligation to obey the government depends on the fact that public power is used for “peace,

safety, and public good of the people” (115). Locke stated explicitly that men cannot yield to the
government more power than they actually possess in the state of nature, which means that there Gannot be

an absolute arbitrary power over their lives and fortunes which are as much possible to be preserved.

Loekean men therefore, are not committed to unfailing obedience. It is a rational and limited agreement,

which assures obedience for the preservation and enhancement of life, liberty and property. The validity of

the contract depends on the continuation of the benefits. In chapter XIX of The 5econd Treatise on Civil

Government, Locke states that:

When any one, or more, shall take upon them to make laws whom the people have not
appointed so to do, they make laws without authority, which the people are not therefore,
bound to obey; by which means they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute
to themselves a new legislative, as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of
those who, without authority, would impose anything upon them (115).

In other words, government could be altered, amended, changed or dissolved legitimately under the

following occasions:

i. Whenever such a prince or single person sets up his own arbitrary will in the

place of laws

ii. When the prince hinders the legislature from assembling in its due or from acting

freely pursuant to those ends for which it is constituted

iii. When the arbitrary power of the prince, the elections and the ways of elections are

altered without the consent and contrary to common interest of the people.

iv. The delivery of the people into the subjection of foreign power either by the

prince or by the legislature

Locke’s intention is to defend the moral right of revolution. Consequently, a government which

begins in force can be justified only by its recognition and support to the moral rights inherent in persons

and communities, He argued that a political revolution which dissolves a government does not, as a rule,

dissolve the community which that government rules. This means that the political revolution dissolves only

the government, but not the community. Summarily, Locke clearly stated that any invasion of the life,
liberty and property of subjects is ipso facto void, and a legislature, which attempts these wrongs, forfeits its

power. In this case, power reverts to the people, who must make a new legislature by a new act of

constitutional legislation.

Moreover, having understood closely the concept sovereignty and in particular, the notion of the

popular sovereignty with reference to John Locke, the work shall take a step fiirther to relating the ideas

discussed in this chapter to bear its implications on the Nigeria’s practice of democracy.