John Locke's Theory of Consent (Essay Sample)

Name of the Student:
Name of Instructor:
Course Code:
Date Submitted:
John Locke’s Theory of Consent: A Critical Analysis of Express and Tacit Consent
Introduction
John Locke is deemed as one of the earliest political philosophers in the developed world. He is well known for the various theories he proposed in the fields of philosophy and political science. His theories are still popular with scholars and students today, many years after his death. He is especially well known for his theories on the right to own property and the proprietor of consent. Consent theory is a philosophical concept based on social perspectives. With regards to social beings, political governance based on this theory acknowledges that a free agent enters into a consensual relationship with other free agents in the society. The theory is traced back to John Locke’s famous phrase that "all men are created equal" (Coleman 214).
In this paper, a discussion of Locke’s theory of consent as a basis for the legitimacy of government is provided. Particular attention is paid to the distinction between express and tacit consents. To this end, the strengths and weaknesses of this theory as a justification for government power are analysed. In addition, an analysis of how the Québec Independence Movement poses challenges to Locke's theory is provided. The author of this essay holds the opinion that Locke's theory is a fair justification of the legitimacy of the government, in spite of the various weaknesses associated with it. The challenges posed by the Québec Independence Movement can be addressed using the theory’s strong points.
John Locke’s Theory of Consent as a Basis for the Legitimacy of Government
Consent Theory: Justifying Government Power
The theory contains an element of the "consent of the governed”. The element holds that the government can only exercise its mandate legitimately when the same is derived from the citizens over which political power is exercised. According to John Locke’s treaties, there are several types of consents. They include, among others, express and tacit consents (Locke and Laslett 209).
Locke is of the opinion that the legitimacy of the government is upheld when the citizens agree with the fundamental principles of the regime. Some scholars contend that not everyone is in agreement with the provisions of the consent theory. In response, Locke comes up with the concept of tacit consent. In this theory, he argues that if anyone enjoys the benefits offered by the government, then they are in tacit agreement with the state. The tacit consent prevails regardless of whether the person likes the government or not. For instance, in section 95 of the second treaty, Locke states that "...men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent" (Locke 522). In the same page, Locke asserts that the consent of the majority in a community takes precedence. As such, everyone is bound by this consent of the majority.
However, Locke tends to contradict himself in some sections of his writing. For instant, he implies that an alien or a traveller in another country will have to abide by the consent of the people in that area. Such a scenario is what most scholars refer to as express consent. In the view of many, these two consents seem to clash in an attempt to establish a legitimate government. For instance, in sections 120 and 121, Locke is quoted as saying that, "...it is fit to consider, that every man, when he at first incorporates himself into any commonwealth, he (unites) himself (with their) possession..." (Locke 528).
In section 122, Locke affirms that a person from another commonwealth enjoys the consent of another country through "express consent”. Through tacit consent, a person may enjoy the benefits of the government without being a ‘consenter’ of the same. To this end, Locke argues that, "...submitting to the laws of any country, living quietly, and enjoying privileges and protection under them (does not) make a man a member of that society" (Locke 529). Locke describes such a scenario as mere local protection and homage. One can be the native of a given country, but does not support the legitimacy of its governance structure. Given such a scenario, and based on Locke’s arguments, one can only wonder whether such an attitude is enough to distinguish between a native and a traveller. In other words, does one become obligated to a society he benefits from?
Locke uses this consent theory to justify the legitimacy of the power held by the government. To this end, consent theory has a major strength that is highlighted by Locke. The theory is not meant for a republic, but for the explicit mutual contract between the citizens and the monarchy (Locke 530). Commonwealth is not used to imply democracy in this theory. On the contrary, it is used to denote an independent community that is not under the leadership of a dictator (Coleman 34).
However, the theory has a major weakness. For example, Locke does not state clearly the difference between executive monarchies and common wealth states. In section 140, Locke asserts that a given government cannot operate without support from the citizens. To this end, citizens are required to pay taxes to support government operations (Locke 534). However, the government cannot impose such taxes without the consent of the people. In addition, the government is chosen by ...