New Optimism : Sir John Locke

In today's day and age, when our leading lights pour praise on ideals of democracy and rights, it can seem very natural to be in a polity based on representative democracy. In popular media and discourse, any state that is autocratic or communist is often frowned upon and considered unstable. But it is useful to remember that it wasn't always this way. In fact, for most of the time following the collapse of Athenian democracy, up to the American revolution, a democracy was frowned upon and considered unstable. None but Athenians themselves were primarily to blame for this. From Plato to Thucydides, most of them wrote in not so glowing terms of their own invention. What however was more accepted across Europe and the world, as the basis for political system, was the so called divine right of kings.

Divine Rights

The doctrine of divine rights, essentially in defense of monarchical absolutism, suggested that kings derived their authority from God and could not therefore be held accountable for their actions by any earthly authority such as a parliament(reminds you of someone in India, doesn't it?). Writing in it's defense in 17th century was a man called Robert Filmer, in his famous book Patriarcha. Filmer argued, in what might seem flimsy today, that the source of regal authority is the subjugation of a son to his father. So the reason a king, who is connected to God through lineage, is the master and ruler of all is because he is the designated father of every person in his kingdom. Hence everyone must listen to him and brook no opposition.


The logic seems awry, but the times during which this book and Locke's rebuttal to this text came to happen, were very tumultuous. England had just come out of a tumultuous civil war and was seething in it's injuries. The old arrangement between the parliament and the king had become unstable and unreliable. A religious quagmire had brought the country to breaking point, where Catholics had been vilified by the Protestants, who were also planning the downfall of the new king, Charles II, for his closeness to the Catholics.

What Now?

The times demanded a new political arrangement. Locke's response wasn't just to Robert Filmer, but was a timely response to political problem of the society. Locke starts off his arguments on the political framework, just like Hobbes, using the state of nature. But he disagrees with Hobbes right away by saying that the State of Nature is not "nasty, brutish and short" where men murder men in the lust of life and property. It is a state of relative peace and amity, he argues. Locke uses many imaginative ploys, like Natural Law to suggest that every person in this pre-political society is entitled to some "inalienable rights", like rights to life, liberty and property. That is, I "own" myself and what is produced by my self. And what do we mean by "owning"? It means, no one can take them away from me, without consequences, because they are mine, not yours.

Assumptions to the model

This is a powerful idea, a strong belief, that men outside a political society could own themselves and what they produce, and could punish each other if someone steals or breaks the pact. It is this idea of a natural law that meant that people won't try to do something like that, because such a system is in place, one of mutual deterrence.

Now, no one has actually ever seen, what a pre-political society might look like,  would people be less fearful and more greedy, as in Hobbes' story or more fearful, protective and as a result amiable, as narrates Locke. But these differing stories mean different things for the kind of political society that has to be erected or imagined.

Polecats and Lions?

For Hobbes' cruel and greedy hobbits, protection from each other was the holy grail. A strong King or or body of men, consented in by everyone, who'd have unrivaled power and control, to enforce the consent of mutual protection, using the sword. Lest someone should kill another, enslave another, or rob another, the Leviathan shall consume them. Locke argues, that this very Leviation, is the forgotten villain, a creature that could enforce the contract, but be out of it itself, violating everyone's life, liberty and property with no brook or fear. Locke famously mocks Hobbes'  idea by saying, 'to think that Men are so foolish that they take care to avoid what Mischiefs maybe done them by Pole Cats, but are content, nay think Safety, to be devoured by Lions'. 

For both these social contractarians, all men and women were equal, who would consent among themselves to form a state. But their assumptions of the human condition are different. Where Hobbes is pessimistic in his view, Locke is optimistic. For Hobbes, it is fear that drives men to form a Leviathan. For Locke, it is trust in a better system, a system that can ensure their natural rights to life, liberty and property better. For Hobbes, men would trade 'obedience for protection'. Locke's men, have more and need more of their system. It's the incentives that are different for these two philosophers.

In this manner, Locke shows Filmer like and Hobbes like Absolutism the door, and introduces an alternate possibility, one long considered a taboo, the rule of the majority. Not just the rule of majority in consenting into a political system, but in all the decisions that the system takes. There are contradictions underlying here, in ensuring the rights of individuals, and yet giving substantial powers to the majority. Locke cannot see any other way either. If every man is asked personally if he would like to pay tax on his property, the state would collapse into an anarchy. Locke, hence brings in much needed pragmatism, in making this democratic system practically viable.

Secondly, again in opposition to absolutism, Locke introduces accountability. Under the Divine Right of kings, it is assumed that no one can oppose the nominee of the Gods. Locke breaks this and says, that people, as they all join in equally, with equal moral natural rights, and form the state from among themselves, have also the right to rebel and change the rulers. The rulers, so to say, those who form the state, have no divine moral authority. This again shows Locke's optimism in people's ability to revolt rationally and convene a new state, without descending into a state of war.

John Locke, for no less reason, is considered the founding father of the American Constitution. His idea of 'inalienable rights' forms the building blocks of the American Constitution. These rights embody the spirit of impartiality or equality and liberty. Almost single handedly, Locke brings back the centuries old idea of the rule of the majority and demolishes the absolutist excesses that had been justified until then. He brings fresh force to the idea of democracy, long disgraced and in slumber. To Sir John Locke, we owe much of what we see today in terms of successful democratic institutions.

References

1.  Ross Harrison: Democracy (1993) - Routledge

2. Bertrand Russell : History of Western Philosophy(1945) - Routledge