Why did Locke believe that absolute monarchy was inconsistent with civil society?

Word count: 2,621 Enrique Requero

John Lockes Two Treatises of Government was one among many contemporary British and European works which discussed for or against absolutism by looking at the origin of governments and proposing a progression from an initial State of Nature of individual men to the formation of civil societies. Hobbes Leviathan is an example of another of these of works, from which the language used in the Two Treatises is in fact borrowed, although there are clear disagreements between the two authors.1 While Hobbes was an advocate for absolutism, Locke, on the other hand, rejected this form of political power on the basis that absolutism impeded the realisation of the ends for which civil society was established in the Social Contract. Men, he argued, form societies to remedy those inconveniences of the State of Nature, (...) by setting up a known Authority, to which every one of that Society may Appeal upon any Injury received. Since absolute monarchs concentrated both executive and legislative power, there was no such authority to which grievances could be directed in order to receive relief or redress of any Injury or Inconveniency, that may be suffered from the Prince, because the Princes were that authority themselves. Thus, the prince was as much in the State of Nature with respect to his subjects as with the rest of Mankind (...) for wherever any two Men are, who have no common Judge to Appeal to, they are still in the State of Nature.2 These were the basic lines of a much broader and complex theory which this essay will expose in a concise way. The essay will also address the historical circumstances in which the Two Treatises were produced. These will provide us with an insight into the reasons which moved Locke to elaborate his detailed attack of absolutism, based on an emphasis of the absolute liberty of all the members of a society.3 Furthermore, looking at the historical context will highlight the ways in which Lockes work influenced political developments in the world in which it came about, and explain why the Two Treatises stood out among many similar contemporary works, with principles which inspired later major events, such as the American Declaration of Independence, and became vital elements of English Liberalism and of the Western notion of democracy.4 In the Second Treatise, Locke supported the idea of a State of Nature as the state in which all Men are naturally in5 prior any form of society. In the State of Nature, there is absolute equality among men, with the absence of any mode of subordination or subjection. Moreover, men in this state enjoy also 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.6 In fact, Locke was very insistent on the existence of a Natural Law before society was formed. This is because, he says, the State of Nature is a State of Liberty, but not of Licence.7 For him, law does not just play a vital role in ordering the State of Nature and later on society, but
1 2

Wootton (2008), p.279. Locke, p.326. 3 Beer (1969), p.44. 4 Ibid. 5 Locke, p.269. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid., p.270.

Why did Locke believe that absolute monarchy was inconsistent with civil society?

Enrique Requero

it is in fact essential to allow for liberty, going as far as to affirm that where there is no Law, there is no Freedom.8 Law in the State of Nature grants each individual a right and a duty to preserve oneself and the rest of mankind, and to seek restitution for injuries inflicted by other men. Thus, because of Natural Law, any man who tries to impose himself on anothers freedom, property or person, is in fact setting himself in a State of War with the victim. In this situation, law in the State of Nature confers the victim a right to punish or destroy the transgressor, for the same reason he may kill a Wolf or a Lyon; because such men [the transgressors] are not under the ties of Common Law of Reason.9 The right that men had to punish offenders against Natural Law in the pre-social condition was also a potential source of confusion and disorder among men in the State of Nature. Self-love will make Men partial to themselves and their Friends. And on the other side, that Ill Nature, Passion and Revenge will carry them too far in punishing others. 10 It was inappropriate for men to be judges of their own cases, if peace and fairness in the application of justice was desired in the State of Nature. On the other hand, men had the duty to apply justice and punish transgressors. Therefore, in Lockes view, the need of impartial judges is what first moved men to create civil societies or governments, as the proper Remed[ies] for the Inconveniences of the State of Nature.11 Hence, so as to avoid the fears and dangers produced by an unfair application of justice in the State of Nature, men united to establish civil societies which would enable the mutual preservation of lives, liberties and property. This was to be done through the promulgation of a known law which couldnt be abused by bias, and through the appointment of impartial judges which would apply this known law. Although retaining their freedom in its totality, when men united in civil societies with the Social Contract, they surrendered their power to act for self-preservation and delegated to be regulated by the Legislative power in society, whose mission was to define new laws. They also delegated their right to punish to the Executive power in society, which had the function of executing the law.12 It is important to note that Locke believed that, even after society was established, each man was still born in the State of Nature, with his own individual natural rights, and that he only gave them up to the political power when joined society by direct or tacit consent.13 Once Lockes idea of what constituted a civil society is expounded, the inconsistency of absolutism with regard to it seems clear. Firstly, it has already been mentioned how much importance Locke gave to law to make freedom possible. Freedom in civil society was guaranteed because society was overshadowed by the rule of law. Absolutism, in contrast, positioned monarch above the law by definition. For Locke, it did not make sense from the point of view of the people to accept absolutism and simultaneously consider themselves safe under the protection of law, because it was like to think that Men are so foolish that they

8 9

Locke, p.306. Ibid., p.278. 10 Ibid., p.275. 11 Ibid., p.276. 12 Ibid., pp.350-3,364. 13 Ibid., p.278.

Why did Locke believe that absolute monarchy was inconsistent with civil society?

Enrique Requero

take care to avoid what Mischiefs may be done them by Pole-Cats, or Foxes, but are content, nay think it Safety, to be devoured by Lions.14 Secondly, absolutism was also inconsistent with civil society because, as expressed in the introduction of this essay, in the event of the State of War arising between the monarch and any of his subjects, there was no impartial judge to intermediate and ensure a fair application of punishment to the guilty party, which was the whole point of setting up civil societies. It is noteworthy how Locke contemplated the possibility of a civil society turning into an absolutist system. This could happen mainly in two ways (it is highly relevant that Locke concentrated only in two specific forms of corruption of civil society, as will be stressed when the essay focuses on the historical context of the Two Treatises). The first was when the Executive abused its Prerogative power. Prerogative was the Power to act according to discretion, for the public good, without the prescription of the Law, and sometimes even against it.15 Since it was essentially a Power of doing public good without a rule,16 Prerogative was basically abused whenever the Executive used it for its own ends, rather than to advance the common good in society. The second way a civil society could be corrupted and become absolutist was whenever the Executive failed to convoke or dissolve the Legislative when it was supposed to do so, which was part of the Prerogative power. This was more likely to happen when the Executive was held by a monarch and the Legislative by a parliamentary assembly. It was perceived as an absolutist policy of the Executive because failing to enable the Legislative to operate was a clear obstruction of the course of the Law that was expected to rule a civil society. Finally, the most striking of Lockes ideas in this respect, is that the argued that when the Executive used force against the Legislative and the people, it became absolutist, broke the social contract and went into a state of war with the people. Both were back now in the State of Nature, with the Executive as transgressor and the people as victims. Thus, Natural Law stated that it was a right and a duty of the people to use force in retaliation and to punish the offender.17 A breach of the Social Contract resulting from the abuse of Prerogative and a violation of the fundamental laws of the kingdom was the central argument of the Declaration of Rights drafted by the Convention Parliament in February 1689. The Declaration sought in this way to justify the deposition of James II and the eventual coronation of William of Orange and Mary Stuart.18 Since the Two Treatises were only published in August 1689 and in his work Locke justified the deposition of absolute monarchs and the dissolution of governments using similar language to that of the Declaration of Rights, it has generally been assumed ever since that the Two Treatises were just a comment on the events of 1689 which provided strong philosophical and theoretical arguments in support of William and Mary.19 Moreover, this view is supported by the fact that Locke himself stated that this was in fact the intention of his publication, when in the preface he wrote that he hoped his book to be

14 15

Locke, p.328. Ibid., p.375. 16 Ibid., p.378. 17 Ibid., pp.273,370-2. 18 Beddard (1991), pp.77-9. 19 Laslett, pp.40-1.

Why did Locke believe that absolute monarchy was inconsistent with civil society?

Enrique Requero

Sufficient to establish the Throne of our Great Restorer, Our present King William; to make good his Title, in the Consent of the People, which being the only one of all lawful Governments, he has more fully and clearly than any prince in Christendom: And to justifie to the World, the People of England, whose love of their Just and Natural Rights, with their Resolution to preserve them, saved the Nation when it was on the very brink of Slavery and Ruin.20

Consequently, this traditional interpretation of Locke has portrayed him as the spokesman of his time and the foundation stone of English liberalism. 21 Nevertheless, Peter Laslett challenged this view in the 1950s, which he referred to as a fallacy.22 Laslett argues that the political references contained in the book suggest that it was composed in a much earlier period. For example, the concern the book shows with the call and the dissolution of parliament, as a crucial relationship between the Executive and Legislative and whose abuse could lead to the state of war, seems to suggest that the Two Treatises were written in an earlier political context than 1688-9, because at that time this was not a big issue and nor had it been during James IIs reign although it had indeed been an issue in 1678-81.23 Thus, Laslett is of the opinion that the Two Treatises is an Exclusion Tract, not a Revolution pamphlet.24 He concluded that the Second Treatise had been written in 1679-80, the First in 1681 as a response to Filmers Patriarcha which supported the Duke of Yorks claim to the crown, and that both had experienced major revision between February and August 1689, prior to the final publication of the Two Treatises.25 One of the arguments used by Laslett to support his theory was Lockes friendship with the Earl of Shaftesbury, although Laslett did not develop this much. Richard Ashcraft blames this negligence as the cause of Lasletts theory not being historical enough and thus, not having prompted a major change in the widespread traditional interpretations of Locke.26 For Ashcraft, the intimacy and community of ideas that existed between Shaftesbury and Locke is crucial for a proper understanding of what motivated the production of the Two Treatises and led to later repercussions. Locke was Shaftesburys secretary of philosophy and, as such, he produced writings to promote the political objectives of the Earl and the Whigs. Ashcraft acknowledges Lasletts achievement of clarifying the proper historical foundations of Lockes Two Treatises, but because he failed to assess the significance of the Shaftesbury-Locke friendship, he ignored what Shaftesburys political purposes were. This is highly relevant if we bear in mind that Locke was writing to persuade people to support Shaftesbury.27 The Earl and the Whigs opposed the succession of the Catholic James II to the Crown because they saw it as part of a pan-European conspiracy to impose Popery and absolutism. It is in this context where political works were appearing, attacking or defending absolutism. Nevertheless, Shaftesbury and his political allies perceived the 1679-80 exclusion crisis as a
20 21

Locke, p.137. Aschcraft (1980), p.429. 22 Laslett, p.42. 23 Ibid., p.48. 24 Ibid., p.52 25 Beer, p.35. 26 Ashcraft, p.430. 27 Ibid., p.435.

Why did Locke believe that absolute monarchy was inconsistent with civil society?

Enrique Requero

matter to be resolved through constitutional methods in parliament and, accordingly, they attempted to pass a exclusionist bill. Hence, it did not make sense at the time for Locke to be calling for a revolution in his writings, as Laslett argues.28 However, it was with the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament in 1681 that things changed. The strategy of opposing the potential future tyranny of James with the exclusionist bill had failed and a policy shift took place in the inner circle of Shaftesbury and his affiliates. Now they had to focus on the real dangers of tyranny which Charles IIs later policies posed. This was also a turning to radicalism, because it scared away many moderate Whigs who were keen to oppose James but not Charles, and attracted many radicals of lower standing to the group formed by Shaftesbury and some hard core Whig associates.29 It was within this radical atmosphere that plans for a revolution began to crystallise, with the literary representatives of the group writing drafts for a political declaration to justify it.30 Ashcraft sees Lockes Second Treatise as yet another of these drafts produced by the group, and argues that all these gave cohesion to the group by using a revolutionary political language whose main function was to persuade potential supporters of the movement.31 Ashcrafts findings about the context in which the Two Treatises were produced are very revealing for a better understanding of the work and the motivations which prompted it. Firstly, they show that Locke did not really enjoy the political innocence which the traditional interpretation of his work has granted him. Secondly, Ashcraft has also successfully uncovered the extent to which Locke was imbued in political radicalism, and how his use of a specifically designed language made his revolutionary work more powerful and thus more acceptable for more moderate minds. Locke developed a convincing theoretical argument which upheld the inconsistency of absolutism with civil society in order to justify his fears and opposition to Charles II and the absolutist threat he represented. Nonetheless, the extent to which this argument was just theoretical, together with the powerful language used to develop it, made of the Second Treatise a formidable tool which later was used to justify the Glorious Revolution and the American War of Independence. However, this did not stop Lockes work from being an effective vindication of revolutionary action or, as Wootton puts it, the most sophisticated defence of assassination ever written.32

28 29

Ashcraft, p.438. Ibid., pp.448-52. 30 Ibid., pp.456,468. 31 Ibid., p.470. 32 Wotton, p.280.

Why did Locke believe that absolute monarchy was inconsistent with civil society?

Enrique Requero

Bibliography -J. LOCKE, 1632-1704, Two Treatises of Government, Student Edition, P. Laslett, Ed. (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, 1988). -P. LASLETT, The English Revolution and Locke's 'Two Treatises of Government', Cambridge Historical Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 (1956), pp. 40-55. -R. ASHCRAFT, - Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government: Radicalism and Lockean Political Theory, Political Theory, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Nov., 1980), pp. 429-486. -Revolutionary Politics and Lockes Two Treatises of Government (1986). -E.S. DE BEER, Locke and English Liberalism: The Second Treatise of Government in its Contemporary Setting, from J.W. Yolton (Ed.), John Locke: Problems and Perspectives (1969). -R. POLIN, John Lockes Conception of Freedom, from J.W. Yolton (Ed.), John Locke: Problems and Perspectives (1969). -D. WOOTTON (Ed.), Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche (2008). -R.A. BEDDARD, The unexpected Whig revolution of 1688 from R.A. Beddard, The Revolutions of 1688 : the Andrew Browning lectures (1991).