Explain the theoretical basis of Locke's theory of the limitations on legitimate government

Résumé du document

Political science has been considerably changed by the English Revolution of the 17th century. Indeed, this revolution happened because of the contestation of the British king legitimacy by a certain number of political thinkers. First, Sir Edward Coke, jurist and member of the Parliament, stood against despotic orientations of kings James I and Charles I of England in the early 17th century (Lécuyer, 2001).

Hence, other critics were made to make politics change and the most revolutionary ones were those of John Locke, an English philosopher and physician. His political thought was new and went against previous ones: John Locke is generally considered as the father of liberalism. In this turbulent time, his writings allowed to legitimize William Orange who had been proclaimed king of England as a consequence of the Glorious Revolution. Indeed, Locke considered that the tradition of a king as an executive officer of the Parliament was threatened by the previous government unlike William III of England who defended a parliamentary regime.

Such regime is the best regime according to Locke because it limits the king's power and it allows citizens to decide for their future. It is important to understand to what extent Locke's basis assumptions about human nature influence his theory of the legitimate government which is necessarily limited. Firstly, we will study what is the state of nature according to Locke and why it is necessary for men to gather in a political community with a common authority. Secondly, we will explain the core of its theory about governments and why it is necessary to limit authorities' power.

Extraits

[...] On the other hand, economic expansion is a factor of interdependence but also of accumulation of wealth. Hence, the gap between the haves and the have- nots widens because saving and hoarding are therefore possible. A political authority becomes necessary because men cannot coexist in peace anymore. The State is created to provide public justice (and not private justice anymore): men come to be under a mutual judge to settle disputes. By the consent, men renounce to punish infringements on their own. [...]

[...] * * * To conclude, we can say that Locke's conception of human nature is necessarily a basis to his theory about the limitations on legitimate governments. He derives right to limit political power from our duty of self-preservation' (Hampsher-Monk, 1994). In his opinion, theory of political obligation . is centred on the notion of consent' (Macfarlane, 1970). The State has to be limited in the way it behaves in order to respect men's freedom. Its main purpose it to create a common public justice and to assure security in a society where men have to renounce to a part of their liberty. [...]

[...] Finally, the State has to be a minimum State in order to let people free: this is the conception of the liberal State elaborated by Locke and which had a significant influence in the following decades, particularly in Europe. His conception of separated power remains essential to understand our current parliamentary regimes. Bibliography Chappell, V. (1994), The Cambridge companion to Locke, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Hampsher-Monk, I. (1992), A history of modern political thought, Cambridge: Basil Blackwell Inc. Lecuyer, G. (2001), Histoire des idées politiques, 14th ed., Dalloz, Paris. Locke, J. (1967), Two treatises of government: a critical edition with an introduction and appatarus criticus by Peter Laslett, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Macfarlane, L. [...]

[...] J. (1970), Modern Political Theory, Nelson, London. [...]

[...] Locke thinks the State of nature is generally a State of peace and that it only degenerated into war and conflicts if men, who are naturally partial to their own interests, begin to break moral rules. On the other side, Locke overcomes that a civil society can also be characterized by a State of war if the authority is not legitimate or if there is injustice. Then, we are going to explain the transition from the State of nature to the civil society which is necessary if men want to coexist. Why men do have incentives to form a collective community? [...]