Revolution and Resistance in Locke’s Two Treatises of Government: A Reappraisal

Revolution and Resistance in Locke’s Two Treatises of Government: A Reappraisal

Introduction

John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (1689) is a foundational text in the history of political thought, often celebrated as a cornerstone of liberal democracy and constitutional government. Locke’s theory of government, developed against the backdrop of the English Glorious Revolution (1688), presents a powerful argument for the right of resistance and revolution against tyranny. While Locke’s work has been interpreted primarily as a defense of property rights and constitutional monarchy, it also contains a radical doctrine of popular sovereignty and the right of resistance that has influenced revolutionary movements from the American and French Revolutions to contemporary struggles for democratic rights (Dunn, 1969; Tully, 1980).

This paper critically examines Locke’s theory of resistance and revolution, exploring its philosophical foundations, practical implications, and ongoing relevance to contemporary political thought. It argues that Locke’s right to revolution is not merely a conservative defense of property but a profound challenge to authoritarian rule that remains central to modern democratic theory.

Foundations of Locke’s Theory of Revolution

1. Natural Rights and the State of Nature
   • Locke’s political theory is built on the concept of natural rights, which he defines as life, liberty, and property. In the state of nature, individuals possess these rights inherently, prior to the formation of political society (Locke, 1689, Second Treatise, Chapter 2).
   • Unlike Hobbes, who views the state of nature as a condition of violent anarchy, Locke argues that it is a state of relative peace and equality, bound by natural law.
   • However, without a common authority to enforce natural law, conflicts over property and personal rights inevitably arise, necessitating the formation of political society (Dunn, 1969).
2. The Social Contract and Political Legitimacy
   • Locke’s social contract theory asserts that legitimate governments are based on the consent of the governed. Individuals agree to form a political society to protect their natural rights more effectively (Locke, 1689, Second Treatise, Chapter 8).
   • Political power, for Locke, is limited and conditional, deriving its legitimacy from the protection of individual rights. When governments fail to fulfill this duty, they lose their legitimacy and can be justifiably resisted.
   • This contractual basis for political authority challenges the divine right of kings and absolute monarchy, making Locke a revolutionary thinker in his time (Tully, 1980).

The Right of Revolution and the Limits of Political Authority

1. The Right of Resistance as a Natural Right
   • Locke argues that when a government acts against the common good or violates the natural rights of its citizens, the people have a natural right to resist. This right is not granted by the state but is inherent in the social contract itself (Locke, 1689, Second Treatise, Chapter 19).
   • This doctrine significantly influenced the American Declaration of Independence, which echoes Locke’s language of resistance and popular sovereignty (Armitage, 2004).
2. Justifying Revolution – When is Rebellion Legitimate?
   • For Locke, revolution is justified under specific conditions, including:
     • Violation of Natural Rights – When the government becomes a tyrant by violating the basic rights of life, liberty, and property.
     • Breach of the Social Contract – When rulers act without the consent of the governed, breaking the fundamental agreement that underpins political legitimacy.
     • Destruction of the Separation of Powers – When the executive or legislative branch usurps the powers of the other, effectively creating an absolute monarchy (Locke, 1689, Second Treatise, Chapter 19).
   • Locke’s framework sets a high bar for justifiable rebellion, distinguishing his theory from more radical revolutionary doctrines.
3. Resistance, Revolution, and Civil Disobedience
   • Locke also anticipates later theories of civil disobedience by arguing that individuals have a duty to resist unjust laws, even if it means violating positive law in the service of natural justice (Tully, 1980).
   • This concept has profoundly influenced later political thinkers, including the American Founders, French revolutionaries, and modern human rights activists.

Critiques and Limitations of Locke’s Theory

1. Property-Centric Focus
   • Critics argue that Locke’s emphasis on property rights limits the radical potential of his theory of resistance. Marxist scholars like C.B. Macpherson contend that Locke’s social contract primarily protects the economic interests of the propertied classes, rather than universal human rights (Macpherson, 1962).
   • This critique raises questions about whether Locke’s theory can support broader social and economic justice movements.
2. Cultural and Colonial Implications
   • Locke’s ideas were also used to justify European colonialism, particularly in North America, where settlers invoked the right to resist “savage” native resistance to European land claims (Arneil, 1996).
   • This raises ethical concerns about the exclusivity of Locke’s concept of rights and its implications for indigenous populations.
3. Ambiguities and Practical Limitations
   • Locke’s theory of revolution remains ambiguous in its practical application. How do citizens determine when a government has become tyrannical? What mechanisms exist to limit the potential for violent conflict?
   • These unresolved questions have led some scholars to argue that Locke’s theory is more idealistic than practical in the context of complex modern states (Dunn, 1969).

Conclusion

John Locke’s theory of resistance and revolution remains a foundational element of liberal democratic thought, providing a powerful justification for the right to challenge and overthrow oppressive governments. However, his emphasis on property rights and individual consent reflects the historical context of 17th-century England, raising questions about the applicability of his ideas to modern struggles for social justice and decolonization. Despite these limitations, Locke’s radical vision of popular sovereignty and the right of resistance continues to inspire democratic movements worldwide, demonstrating the enduring relevance of his political philosophy in the 21st century.