The Dissolution of Government Theme Analysis

As Locke’s Second Treatise of Government outlines the ways in which a civil society can be created and maintained through a formal government, he also outlines the ways in which a government can be dissolved. Locke is quick to point out that the dissolution of government is not the same as the dissolution of society. A society, which is created through consent and agreement into a common-wealth, can exist without government; however, government, which is in fact a part of society, cannot exist without the common-wealth. In this light, the only way for a society to be dissolved is though foreign invasion and conquest. Government, on the other hand, can be dissolved by numerous internal and external factors, and in certain circumstances, Locke even supports such dissolution. With his examination of the dissolution of government in the Second Treatise of Government, Locke effectively argues that since society and government are the result of a social contract and consent, any dissolution of the government that does not come directly from the people is illegitimate.

Locke examines three separate ways in which a government can be dissolved: by conquest, by usurpation, and by tyranny. He maintains that each of these forms of dissolution are perpetrated without the consent of the people, which makes them illegitimate. Conquest, which is assuming control of a society or government by force, does not give the conqueror power over all. According to Locke, “if there were any that consented not to the war, and over the children of the captives themselves, or the possessions of either, he has no power; and so can have, by virtue of conquest, no lawful title himself to dominion over them.” While the conqueror does have “despotical power” over those who agree and give consent to the conquest, the conqueror does not have power over those who dissent. As Locke claims that a conquest is often called a “foreign usurpation,” it stands to reason that a usurpation “is a kind of domestic conquest,” which makes a usurpation illegitimate as well. Locke claims that a usurper—one who tries to assume another’s power as their own—“can never have right on his side,” as one can never come “into the possession of what another has right to.” In short, a usurper is not given consent, thus they can have no real power. Lastly, Locke outlines tyranny, or “the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.” Much like a usurper, a tyrant operates without the consent of the people, and without consent, the power exercised by a tyrant is likewise illegitimate.

While the government can be dissolved from an outside force, Locke contends that it can be dissolved from inside the government as well, which can be just as destructive. Government can be dissolved “when the legislative is altered.” Legislative power is altered when the governing body begins to pass arbitrary laws, the very thing the legislative is not allowed to do. Arbitrary laws do not benefit the people of the common-wealth, nor do the governed consent to these measures, and the government is thereby dissolved. Government can also be dissolved whenever laws or power is altered without the consent of the people. Unauthorized changes in government lead to an altered legislative, which again dissolves the government. The dissolution of government also occurs if the monarchy prevents the legislative from meeting and acting freely. When a king interferes with the assembly of the legislative, it is effectively altered, which, according to Locke, “puts an end to the government.” The legislative works directly for the people, and if that work is prohibited, government cannot stand. Lastly, Locke argues, government is dissolved whenever the common-wealth is subjected to a foreign power, by either the monarchy or the legislative. Subjecting a common-wealth to a foreign power leads to “a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government.” As the purpose of government is to produce a free and independent society, this is automatically lost under the control of a foreign power.

Locke maintains that the power given to the common-wealth by the individual will remain with the common-wealth as long as it survives, and cannot be reverted back to the individual. Power must remain with the common-wealth, Locke contends, “because without this there can be no community, no common-wealth, which is contrary to the original agreement.” Thus, if for any reason the power of the government is dissolved or forfeited, “it reverts to the society, and the people have a right to act as supreme, and continue the legislative in themselves; or erect a new form, or under the old form place it in new hands, as they think good.” In other words, it is the common-wealth, or the people, who collectively hold the power after the dissolution of government.