John Locke's Second Treatise On Government

Democratic societies, as they have come to be known and recognized in the 21st century, often operate on the principle of majority rule. The citizens of a nation, often referred to as the “masses” by democracy’s detractors, have final say in the actions of their government. Officials, though duly elected, can be removed at any time provided that a majority of citizens wish it so. This ability is noted by famed philosopher John Locke, who, in his Second Treatise on Government, declared it not only an existing right, but a necessary one. While revolution is often seen as the ultimate culmination of such rights, the exercise of disagreement with one’s government can be seen at much lower levels, up to and include non-violent protests and civil disobedience.

While the notion of a right to revolution is centuries old, and, according to some philosophers, originated with the concept of the State, the means and tools used to express dissatisfaction often go unaddressed. In his work, Civil Disobedience, author, philosopher, and transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau offered reasoning and examples of how one might show dissatisfaction with one’s government. Whether intentional or not, his example provided influence to a number of leaders and

political movements. With such strong and moving effects on the history of democratic resistance, it can be argued that Thoreau set into place the means by which the masses could protest. Whereas Locke and his colleague Thomas Paine proclaimed that protest and rebellion should be done, it is Thoreau who outlined quite possibly the best means for going about such a task.
For each philosopher, the justification of a right to revolution cannot be adequately explained without first reasoning why government as an institution exists in the first place. If a government is illegitimate and has no basis in reason or logic, it would not be a question of whether or not it citizens would revolt. By and large, revolutions are rare and seldom occur unless government have consistently violated the rights and liberties of the citizen body. Therefore, it can be surmised that government as an institution plays at least some necessary role in society. Locke, Paine, and Thoreau generally agree that the ideals of government are most clearly seen when modern society is compared to the state of nature.
According to John Locke, the state of nature was a time before the establishment of civil society, wherein all men were free, “to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature” (Locke 4). While the laws of Nature taught early man to not harm another man’s life or property, there existed no physical guarantor of one’s natural rights. At some point in time, a group of men collected together and, realizing the benefits of cooperating in a lawful, regulated fashion, agreed to form a government. This new, civil society would be governed by a legislature that would create laws and an executive to enforce them. From this basic model, all forms of governments, at one point or another, originated.
It must be noted that, according to Locke, the ideal system of government was one in which society was governed by the majority.

Government was, after all, established by the consent of people, and it is only natural that they maintain this consent. However, this was not always the case, as from this basic model, monarchies and aristocracies also emerged. These systems violate the principles of civil government insofar as there is no common authority and an imbalance between legislative and executive powers. Thus, a democracy was the preferred form of government, as it allowed for citizens to retain some of their natural freedoms and rights, while at the same time continuing to allow them a voice in how they wished to be

governed.
While many natural rights were retained following the establishment of government, such as the right to one’s life, liberty, and property, one of the most integral rights preserved was the right to usurp and replace one’s government, if the majority so chose. By preserving this right, the commonwealth guarantees its safety from oppressive government. Of course, this style of revolution is aimed at tyrants and despots, rather than the notion of government itself. While it is indeed possible that the majority may decide to not create a new form of government, Locke rules this out as incredibly unlikely. Therefore, the only time a revolution will occur, is when the government has acted beyond its right, and has become harmful to the people it exists to protect.
The notion of a right to revolt against one’s government, though existing in one form or another for centuries, has been largely attributed to John Locke, who more thoroughly developed the concept during the beginning of the Enlightenment era. Whereas in previous instances, the idea of revolution being a right was used merely to excuse the overthrow of despotic rulers, Locke considered revolution to be an integral right of the social contract theory. The purpose of government, according to Locke, was to protect the lives, liberties, and property of those it governed. Its power and authority to do so stemmed from the consent of the people, proving that the ultimate say always rested with the people. This ‘Supreme Power’, as Locke referred to it, is the basis for one’s right of revolution.
The government’s power to act is based upon trust. As such, its power is limited by the extent of that trust granted toward it. At any time during which the people perceive the government to be acting contrary to that trust, they are granted the power and authority, “to rid themselves of those who invade this Fundamental, Sacred, and unalterable Law of Self-Preservation, for which they enter'd into Society” (Locke 149). By doing so, the people are then free to form a new government, if they so choose, and are rid of the oppression of the old one.
While Locke’s ideals were certainly influential on the Founders of the United States of America, he is not the only philosopher to hold such a lofty title. Thomas Paine, an English/American political activist writing during the time of the American, and later, French revolutions, had much to say about the concept of government and society’s right to resist and overthrow their government. Though no doubt influenced by his predecessor, Paine diverged from Locke’s line of reasoning in several notable instances.
Whereas Locke reasoned that government’s true intention was to protect life and property, Paine followed a more pessimistic view of humanity. Natural rights, if they existed at all, were not enough to keep men from constantly seeking to harm one another or profit from their misfortune. Government’s purpose is to protect men from their own vices, which implies that the vices of men have existed since the beginning. Born out of necessity, government is imperfect, but is a necessary evil that protects society from the greater evils of unrestrained man. Aside from this stipulation, however, Paine and Locke agree that governments must protect life, liberty, and property.
When it comes to the form of- government which is most ideal, Paine reasons that a society where people have a say in the laws that govern them will logically be a happier society. Therefore, the best system of government is a democracy, where all men have a voice. While direct democracies can be problematic and difficult to manage, a representative democracy combines all the advantages of a democratic state with the practicality of a republic. For this reason, Paine, in his essay Common Sense, urges the American colonies to form such a government. This plea, coupled with his utter denouncement of the legitimacy of monarchical governments resulted in a significant portion of American colonists adopting similar views.
Meanwhile, in his essay the Rights of Man, which inspired action during the French Revolution, Thomas Paine argued that past traditions and governments should not be the basis for a current society. Coming down harshly against the aristocracy and other established legislators, Paine called for democracy in a country firmly under the grip of aristocrats, who cared little for the plight of ordinary citizens. In defense of their right to rebel, Paine writes, “The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of man change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it” (Paine).
In saying this, Paine not only revealed that mankind has the ability and right to rebel against their government, but outlines why they might choose to do so. Similar to Locke, who claimed that the government of one generation does not automatically become the government of the next, Paine claims government is for the living, meaning those who currently live under it. Regardless of set standards or precedents, according to Paine, institutions are only as powerful as the present citizens decide it should be. Just as this line of reasoning inspired angered French citizens to rebel, so too does it highlight the need for people to check and evaluate the performance of their current regime, lest they grow to become corrupt or otherwise inefficient.
The legacy of Locke and Paine went on to inspire a plethora of philosophers, statesmen, and even future presidents. Borrowing the concept of natural, inalienable rights, the general equality of man, and the right to overthrow oppressive governments, the Founders of the United States drafted the Declaration of Independence, in which the influence of Locke and Paine is most clearly seen. In their denouncement of King George III, the Founders highlight his failure to properly govern the colonies, and his depravation of the means to self-govern. Lacking this, the newly formed United States had no choice but to rebel, and, in doing so, realize the ideals of liberty and representative rule praised by Enlightenment era philosophers.
Following the United States’ successful break with Great Britain, a series of revolutions would follow, stretching across the globe. While some failed, a good number succeeded, leading to the establishment of governments and constitutions largely following the Locke model of government by the people. In some instances, of course, oppressive governments were overthrown and merely replaced with regimes just as, if not more oppressive. However, these occurrences have failed to ultimately stand the test of time. In the centuries following the establishment of the United States, numerous countries have ousted imperial rulers, chaotic despots, and ineffective military dictatorships.
Out of the 192 countries on Earth, roughly 123 are at least nominally democratic nations. Regions previously dominated by dictators, or countries newly freed from their colonial masters have all experimented with the ideals of a democracy at some level of national politics. The constant establishment and reinforcement of democracies around the world serves as a testament to the impact of Locke and Paine. New democracies are certainly weaker and less effective than more established ones, but their mere existence demonstrates the apparent immortality of mankind’s right to revolution. As the political climate of the world continues to turn toward rule by the people, the value of this natural right is continually seen.
This right to revolution is not something that flares up during times of oppression only to go dormant when a democracy is declared. Politicians and philosophers the world over constantly point out the flaws a democracy has, by nature of being a democracy. To protect their rights against government interference or inefficiency, citizens should remain constantly aware and revolt against laws or decisions which they find to be unfair or harmful. While revolution was never intended to be a constant state of affairs, it is incorrect to assume it should or will happen only once in a country’s history.
It is incredibly likely that, over the course of a nation’s life, numerous acts of revolt or rebellion will take place. Ideally, these will never reach the point where the regime is ousted, but they nevertheless speak to the fact that the masses cannot be expected to remain docile and obedient just because they can vote. Violations of political or civil rights, crimes against humanity, acts of unwarranted aggression or intrusion, and refusals to introduce societal reforms are all actions that the people find appalling and wish to see changed. These desires, when backed by physical action, are instances of people exercising their right to revolution. However, they appear strikingly different to the actions undertaken by hardline political revolutionaries.
Revolution, as it is defined, is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures. Though overthrowing oppressive regimes is certainly a form of revolution, it is by no means the only form. Revolution can, in fact, take form in numerous ways, such as protests, boycotts, and litigations. Locke and Paine have had much to say about political revolutions, but say little about the other kinds of revolution and the way such dissatisfactions might be expressed. It was not until men like Henry David Thoreau, advocating on behalf of a more civil display of disobedience, that revolution ceased to be synonymous with violent uprising.