Locke Second Treatise of Government Chapter 19: Popular Rebellion Justification Analysis

Introduction:

Locke’s Second Treaties of Government Chapter 19 can be used to explain the legitimacy of popular revolution. This paper will demonstrate how insurrection continues to be legitimate in a functioning liberal democratic state. An oppositional perspective will also be included. The first reason that will be examined in this paper is that insurrection ultimately protects the population from potential abuses of power by tyrannical leaders carrying a majority vote in functioning states. Secondly, popular revolution continues to be legitimate in these states because constitutions have become a mechanism to justify discrimination against minorities based on class, race, gender, creed, sexual orientation and mental or physical disabilities. Finally, popular revolution continues to be legitimate because of our constantly evolving political economy and democratic structural power developments. These three reasons combined with the framework in Locke’s 19th Chapter from his Second Treaties of Government justify popular insurrection in a functioning liberal democratic state.

Potential Abuses of Tyrannical Power with Majority Vote:

Bias weaknesses in political structures are exploited by oppressive leaders carrying majority voting capabilities which they leverage to justify atrocious violations of state laws, thus necessitating the use of popular revolution.[1] Legislatures can act to justify these invasions of trust and civil liberties of their subjects.[2] An exception to this is if the autonomy and civil liberties of the subjects are redacted temporarily during warfare when democracy is faced with an imminent threat.[3] On the other hand, it can be argued that popular insurrection in functioning democratic states are illegitimate because constitutional protections are instilled by legislatures, which are firmly in place to safeguard subjects against tyrannical abuses of power.[4] As Locke contends, no one wants to live in mob rule, instability, violence, or anarchy for unjustifiable reasons, thus re-enforcing the illegitimacy of popular insurrection. The exclusion to these claims is in the case of tyrannical leaders whereby “ordinary people” are subjected to oppression. Examples of this tyranny are internal election and tax fraud, and continued oppression of indigenous communities.[5] Moreover, in federalist democratic states like Canada, majority governments are glorified dictatorships as the Prime Minister prescribes how his MPs vote on every issue. In republics, elected Senators and the President have enough control to interfere with and jeopardize civil liberties.

Misuse of Constitutions to Justify Discrimination:

There is a misconception that the absence of monarchical colonial rulers, independent legislatures, judiciaries and entrenched legal constitutions automatically equate to functional liberal democracies, thus making popular concession illegitimate. Common beliefs are that constitutions are protecting “ordinary people”, but these foundational laws have manifested into legal mechanisms to justify discriminatory oppression by wealthy elites against vulnerable minorities. An example of an exception to this claim is the liberation of minorities such as in the case of legalization of same sex marriage. Constitutions within functioning democratic societies have mechanisms to justify discrimination. Internal mechanism for justifying discrimination from Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as an external mechanism of justification in Section 33 known as the notwithstanding clause are examples of why popular rebellion remain justified.[6] The general population are sluggish and loath abandoning old constitutions and as a result are numb to the inner workings of our existing legislature.[7] The bourgeois class rely on this ignorance to continue ongoing governmental discrimination of minorities in “functional” democratic societies, thus popular insurrection remains legitimate.

Evolution of Political Economy & Democracy

“Enough” is the key word for democracy. The Second Treatise Chapter 19 revolves around the demonstration of patience. The only way to successfully relinquish authority from those in power is to prove suffering is long term and change is overdue and to demonstrate that people just can not take it anymore.[8] What started as liberation of the masses in Lockean times from tyrannical rule has evolved into the same pattern of oppression and misdistribution of wealth among elites and the general population. For these reasons, popular insurrection remains justified to safeguard the treatment of minority groups facing discrimination. According to Locke, overthrowing the government does not occur from mere minor mismanagements or policy implications, but from long winded abuses of humanity.[9] This is not the case when those atrocities are ignored or perceived as irrelevant by the majority. Political economic influences like the development of capitalism have clouded our judgement as to which human lives have value. Mass atrocities of the “unpopular” minorities are not met with insurrection despite this being justified based on foul treatment by the bourgeois elites. For these reasons, popular rebellion remains justified in a functioning democratic society.

Conclusion:

The objective of this paper was to demonstrate the continuous validity of popular revolution in a functioning democratic society. Elected majorities in various democratic systems of government present vulnerabilities to “ordinary people” which justify popular revolution. The origination of constitutions derives from the general population breaking away from monarchical oppression, but this has evolved into similar behaviors of oppression by a minority of wealthy individuals which control the masses to serve their own best-interests. The relationship between the people and society and markets and the state have gradually diminished the original foundation of “for the people, by the people” in favor of a system that has numbed the general population into accepting oppressive legal, economic, and social regimes. Popular rebellion remains justified to protect minority groups that have faced and continue to endure gross violations of human dignity in “functioning” democratic societies.

[1] John Locke, “Second Treatise of Government”, in C.B. McPherson, ed, Project Gutenberg (Indianapolis and Cambridge, Hackett Publishing Company, 1980) at 224-225.

[2] Idib at para 221.

[3] Idib at para 231.

[4] Idib at para 226.

[5] Zoran Oklopcic, Lecture Notes: Modern Legal Theory: What is liberal democracy? (Faculty of Law, Carleton University, February 10th, 2021).

[6] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 33, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

[7] Supra note 1 at para 223.

[8] Supra note 5.

[9] Supra note 1 at para 225.

Bibliography:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 33, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

Locke, John. “Second Treatise of Government”, in C.B. McPherson, ed, Project Gutenberg (Indianapolis and Cambridge, Hackett Publishing Company, 1980)

Oklopcic, Zoran. Lecture Notes: Modern Legal Theory: What is liberal democracy? (Faculty of Law, Carleton University, February 10th, 2021).