By Tim Lynch | September 30th, 2021 |
In the 17th Century, an English physician and philosopher named John Locke published several works that became very influential to the Liberty movement in England’s American colonies. Locke’s belief that the faculty of reason could be employed to reveal truths about the physical world led him to a belief that each person is born in possession of two things: Natural, unalienable rights; and the property of his or her own being. His writings, especially his treatises on government, formed the backbone of the revolutionary liberty movement in the American colonies, a movement that rejected monarchy in exchange for the principles of representative civil government.
While Locke’s work stands the test of time, as with anything, it is subject to varying interpretations. Probably the greatest misunderstanding of his writing is an interpretation of something he called “federative power” as a justification for unilateral executive action by an elected leader of a civil government. A straight reading of this notion is likely what gives us contemporary notions of “emergency” authority by executives. In essence it gives an executive the authorization to act outside of what we understand to be the true and just role of civil government in matters that directly concern the public good. For example, in the case of invasion or attack, an executive would have a sort of prerogative power to justify taking action to support the public good, even if doing so violates or is outside the sphere of the law.
Locke’s writing reveals a belief that the presence of such prerogative or “federative” power is not able to be “directed by antecedent, standing, positive laws.” In other words, as he says later, federative power serves the purpose of allowing government to respond to the actions of outside forces, whose plans and actions are so variable and unpredictable as to be impossible to prepare for with the passage of law by representative means. In essence, this is referring to the power to be flexible in responding to unpredictable events in a manner consistent with the public good, even if inconsistent with our outside of written law. However, he also states that federative power “must necessarily be left to the prudence and wisdom of those who have the power to exercise it for the public good,” and that we must “[trust] them to do their best for the advantage of the commonwealth.” 1
Where this argument falls apart is on the assumption that an executive exercising federative power will be both prudent and wise. Perhaps it is an optimistic view by Locke to believe that only prudent and wise individuals would be named by a group of people as the executor of federative power. However, exceptional caution must be exercised in appointing such an individual and granting them this power. Where a problem is found with granting unilateral decision-making power is in the term “public good.” In a small community, the things held commonly important may be fewer and so the establishment of a public good may be easier, whereas this becomes less and less true as a population grows greater in number. In the city of New York, for example, what man or woman thinks they can determine what the “public good” would be in measurable terms for all of the over 8.5 million residents there? In contrast, a small town of 85 people in a rural community can much more likely agree to common interests in need of preservation or protection.
Out of a necessity to approach separation of powers realistically, a few steps must be taken by the people at large and by the legislature. Limitations must be placed on the manner and circumstances in which somebody granted the responsibility of executing the will of the legislature does so. And speaking of “responsibility,” another distinction must be made. An executive who is granted power is accountable to manage it responsibly. Accountable to whom, you might ask? Through representative government, he or she would be accountable to the people indirectly, and to the legislature directly, who must retain power of their own to counteract the power of an executive who has wielded it irresponsibly. The importance of limitations on executive power is not diminished by conceding a need for reactive powers in response to unpredictable events.
You may begin to see a common thread. Without virtue, an executive cannot be trusted to exercise prudence and wisdom in discharging his or her responsibilities. Likewise, neither can a legislature be trusted to check and to balance the power of an unvirtuous executive if they themselves are not virtuous. In kind, since the legislature is and ought to be selected by the people from among them, a deficiency of virtue among the people can only result in the selection of representatives without the prudence and wisdom to exert their power justly in the limitation of the executive to prevent abuse. As Samuel Adams put it, “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” Adams elaborated that “He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.” 2 This is a direct reflection of Locke’s precept that the executors of federative or emergency power must by necessity be of a nature which, stated most simply, equates to virtue.
A problem that seems to be present today is a tacit expectation that elected officials be virtuous, while peddling a notion that the people should be free to exhibit entirely opposite traits. To be fair, a free people are free to choose lives of immorality, indecency, or imprudence. However, a people for whom morality has become unimportant may no more be upset at a corrupt and immoral government than a person may be upset at a bee sting after throwing rocks at a hive. One should look no further for the cause of a dysfunctional government than the values and priorities of the people responsible for its election.
Sources:
1. Second Treatise of Government. John Locke. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm
2. Morality. Samuel Adams Heritage Society. http://www.samuel-adams-heritage.com/quotes/morality.html.
© 2021 Tim Lynch, republication without permission prohibited. All rights reserved.
The Liberty Register 