{"id":3483,"date":"2026-08-11T22:11:09","date_gmt":"2026-08-11T16:41:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/notes\/locke\/"},"modified":"2026-08-22T12:54:37","modified_gmt":"2026-08-22T07:24:37","slug":"locke","status":"publish","type":"psir_note","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/notes\/locke\/","title":{"rendered":"Locke"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"n-wrap\">\n<div class=\"n-shell\">\n<div class=\"n-crumb\"><a href=\"\/psir\/psir-notes\/\">PSIR Notes<\/a><span class=\"sep\">\u203a<\/span><a href=\"\/psir\/psir-notes\/#i-a\">I-A Political Theory and Indian Politics<\/a><span class=\"sep\">\u203a<\/span><span>Locke<\/span><\/div>\n<header class=\"n-head\">\n<div class=\"n-eyebrow\">Paper I \u00b7 Political Theory and Indian Politics<\/div>\n<h1 class=\"n-title\">Locke<\/h1>\n<div class=\"n-syl\"><b>Syllabus \u00b7 Paper I-A \u00b7 10<\/b> \u2014 Western Political Thought : Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, <span class=\"cur\">Locke<\/span>, John S. Mill, Marx, Gramsci, Hannah Arendt.<\/div>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"n-grid\">\n  <main class=\"n-body\"><\/p>\n<h3 id=\"john-locke-1632-1704-the-father-of-liberalism\">John Locke (1632\u20131704) \u2014 the father of liberalism<\/h3>\n<p><span class=\"n-sch\">John Locke<\/span> turns the contract device away from absolutism towards <span class=\"n-term\">limited government under law<\/span>. The grammar is clear: natural law, life, liberty, property, consent, toleration, constitutional government, resistance to tyranny. A moral state of nature, a rights-based politics, a limited government.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">Life, works, position<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Lived through the Civil War, the Commonwealth, the Restoration and the <span class=\"n-term\">Glorious Revolution of 1688<\/span> \u2014 whose intellectual defence he supplied. Westminster \u201cKing\u2019s Scholar,\u201d Oxford, medicine, Fellow of the Royal Society; entered public life through the Earl of Shaftesbury.<\/li>\n<li><span class=\"n-term\">Works:<\/span> <em>Two Treatises of Government<\/em> (1689\u201390) \u2014 First Treatise attacks Filmer\u2019s <em>Patriarcha<\/em>, the Second gives the positive theory; <em>An Essay Concerning Human Understanding<\/em> (the mind a <span class=\"n-term\">tabula rasa<\/span>; knowledge from sensation and reflection); <em>A Letter Concerning Toleration<\/em> (1689); <em>Some Thoughts Concerning Education<\/em> (1693).<\/li>\n<li>Empiricist after Bacon; the major contractual thinker after Hobbes, but rejecting Hobbes\u2019s bleak human nature. <span class=\"n-sch\">Peter Laslett<\/span> treats <span class=\"n-sch\">Robert Filmer<\/span> as Locke\u2019s primary antagonist; <span class=\"n-sch\">John Dunn<\/span> reads Locke essentially as a Calvinist natural theologian.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">Demolishing Filmer<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Filmer: the state is created by God, authority given to Adam and passed to his heirs; the king rules \u201cby the Grace of God,\u201d the king\u2013subject bond like father\u2013child. Locke\u2019s reply: no proof God gave Adam such authority or that it was transmissible; even if it once existed, no genuine heir can now be identified. The state is not a family \u2014 at most a family of families; citizens are not children. Authority rests on <span class=\"n-term\">consent<\/span>, not divine right or patriarchal power.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"state-of-nature-natural-law-natural-rights\">State of Nature, Natural Law &amp; Natural Rights<\/h3>\n<p>Locke\u2019s state of nature is a <span class=\"n-term\">moral condition governed by reason<\/span> \u2014 not Hobbes\u2019s state of war. A state of perfect freedom and equality, with no natural subordination; pre-political, but neither pre-social nor pre-moral.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Men are rational and capable of cooperation \u2014 a condition of \u201cpeace, goodwill, mutual assistance and self-preservation,\u201d governed by the law of nature, which forbids harm to another\u2019s \u201clife, health, liberty, or possessions.\u201d Freedom is not licence; each is bound to preserve others as far as possible. Locke rejects Hobbes\u2019s psychological egoism.<\/li>\n<li><span class=\"n-term\">Inconveniences<\/span> (not war) push men to civil society: men interpret natural law differently; no impartial judge; each is judge in his own case; enforcement is uncertain; property is insecure.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">Natural law &amp; natural rights<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Natural law precedes civil law, is universal, discoverable by reason, rooted in God\u2019s reason and will \u2014 an \u201ceternal rule\u201d binding even rulers. Government exists to <span class=\"n-term\">uphold<\/span> natural law, not replace it.<\/li>\n<li>From it flow the rights to <span class=\"n-em\">life<\/span>, <span class=\"n-term\">liberty<\/span> and <span class=\"n-term\">property<\/span> \u2014 natural, inalienable, inviolable, prior to the state. (In the wide sense, \u201cproperty\u201d includes life and liberty.) Against Hobbes: positive law is valid only when it conforms to natural law.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">Empiricism vs natural law \u2014 the analytical knot<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The <em>Essay<\/em> rejects innate ideas, yet Locke keeps a moral law: moral truths reach certainty through \u201cthe creative participation of mind.\u201d <span class=\"n-sch\">Raymond Polin<\/span> calls him closer to a critical method than to \u201catomistic sensationalism.\u201d <span class=\"n-sch\">C.E. Vaughan<\/span> and <span class=\"n-sch\">George H. Sabine<\/span> saw a contradiction; <span class=\"n-term\">Laslett<\/span>, <span class=\"n-sch\">Hans Aarsleff<\/span> and <span class=\"n-sch\">Richard Ashcraft<\/span> reject it. Core: empiricism gives Locke his method, natural law his moral standard.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"social-contract-consent-society-above-government\">Social Contract &amp; Consent \u2014 society above government<\/h3>\n<p>No subjection to power without <span class=\"n-term\">consent<\/span>. Locke differs from Hobbes by separating <span class=\"n-term\">society<\/span> from <span class=\"n-term\">government<\/span> \u2014 a two-stage contract.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">Two stages, and the remedy of last resort.<\/span> <span class=\"n-term\">State of nature<\/span> (moral, rational) \u2192 <span class=\"n-term\">Inconveniences<\/span> (no settled law \u00b7 no impartial judge \u00b7 weak enforcement) \u2192 <span class=\"n-term\">Social contract<\/span> (unanimous \u2014 creates the community) \u2192 <span class=\"n-term\">Government<\/span> (a fiduciary trust of the people) \u2192 <span class=\"n-term\">Breach<\/span> (revolution \u2014 new government, society survives).<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Society is prior to government; government holds <span class=\"n-term\">delegated power only<\/span>. If government dissolves, society does not \u2014 a bad government can be replaced. Men surrender only the right to make, execute and judge law; they retain <span class=\"n-term\">life, liberty, property<\/span>.<\/li>\n<li><span class=\"n-term\">Express consent<\/span> founds full membership; <span class=\"n-term\">tacit consent<\/span> binds residents, travellers, heirs and resident aliens. Founding needs unanimity; thereafter <span class=\"n-term\">majority rule<\/span> operates. Taxes need consent \u2014 directly or through representatives.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">Waldron\u2019s three stages<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"n-sch\">Jeremy Waldron<\/span>: first, men unanimously come together as a community and pool their natural powers; second, the community sets up legislative and other institutions by majority; third, property-owners consent \u2014 personally or through representatives \u2014 to taxes. Absolutism of Hobbes\u2019s kind is ruled out: rights held as a trust from God cannot be transferred to another\u2019s arbitrary power.<\/p>\n<div class=\"n-pyq\"><span class=\"n-pyq-chip\">UPSC 2022 \u00b7 10m<\/span><span class=\"n-pyq-q\">Comment on Locke\u2019s Social Contract, in 150 words.<\/span><a class=\"n-pyq-a\" href=\"\/psir\/psir-pyq\/comment-on-the-lockes-social-contract-in-150-words-upsc-psir-2022-1306\/\">Answer<\/a><\/div>\n<h3 id=\"civil-society-government-the-separation-of-powers\">Civil Society, Government &amp; the Separation of Powers<\/h3>\n<p>Locke\u2019s state exists for the benefit of the individuals who form it \u2014 no mystical good apart from the people. It is a <span class=\"n-term\">limited, negative, night-watchman state<\/span>: it protects life, liberty and property, works within a constitutional frame, rests on standing known laws, and does not exist to shape character. Government power is held <span class=\"n-term\">on trust<\/span>; its purpose is to preserve and enlarge freedom.<\/p>\n<div class=\"n-tw\">\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Power<\/th>\n<th>Function<\/th>\n<th>Standing<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Legislature<\/td>\n<td>law-making; the will of the people<\/td>\n<td>the \u201csupreme power\u201d \u2014 most important<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Executive<\/td>\n<td>enforces and administers law (absorbs the judicial function)<\/td>\n<td>subordinate to the legislature<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Federative<\/td>\n<td>foreign affairs, war and peace, diplomacy<\/td>\n<td>often in the same hands as the executive<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<ul>\n<li>Limits on government: natural law stands above it \u2014 even the legislature cannot act against it; no arbitrary rule; laws promulgated and known in advance; property not taken without consent; legislative power cannot be delegated away; due process; valid only while it protects rights.<\/li>\n<li><span class=\"n-sch\">Montesquieu<\/span>\u2019s later formulation broadly aligns with Locke\u2019s stress on legislative superiority and limited executive power.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 id=\"theory-of-property\">Theory of Property<\/h3>\n<p>The most debated part of Locke \u2014 linking labour, personality, rights, consent and the purpose of the state.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">From common stock to accumulation.<\/span> <span class=\"n-term\">Common stock<\/span> (originally held in common) \u2192 <span class=\"n-term\">Labour mixed<\/span> (\u201cevery man has a property in his person\u201d) \u2192 <span class=\"n-term\">Private property<\/span> (the \u201cfruit of labour\u201d) \u2192 <span class=\"n-lab\">Limits<\/span> (enough-and-as-good \u00b7 no spoilage \u00b7 labour) \u2192 <span class=\"n-term\">Money<\/span> (dissolves the spoilage limit \u2192 accumulation).<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Since labour belongs to the person, its product becomes property \u2014 tied to personality and freedom; an early source of the <span class=\"n-term\">labour theory of value<\/span>. Three limits: <span class=\"n-term\">labour<\/span>, <span class=\"n-term\">sufficiency<\/span> (leave \u201cenough and as good\u201d) and <span class=\"n-term\">spoilage<\/span> (no waste). The invention of money allows storage without decay, weakening the spoilage limit and opening the door to larger accumulation.<\/li>\n<li>Property &amp; consent: the \u201cgreat and chief end\u201d of civil society is the preservation of property; \u201cthe supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent\u201d \u2014 anticipating \u201cno taxation without representation.\u201d <span class=\"n-sch\">Robert Nozick<\/span>\u2019s entitlement theory later echoes just acquisition, transfer and rectification.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">Possessive individualism \u2014 and the defence<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"n-sch\">C.B. Macpherson<\/span> reads Locke as the theorist of \u201cpossessive individualism\u201d: \u201cthe conception of the individual as essentially the proprietor of his own person or capacities, owing nothing to society for them.\u201d The limits are vague, bypassable, weak once money appears; the theory favours accumulation and defends bourgeois society \u2014 a line shared by <span class=\"n-sch\">Karl Marx<\/span>. Against this, <span class=\"n-sch\">Isaiah Berlin<\/span>, <span class=\"n-sch\">John Dunn<\/span> and <span class=\"n-sch\">Martin Seliger<\/span> stress natural law and common good; <span class=\"n-sch\">James Tully<\/span> argues Locke\u2019s purpose is \u201cnot to justify unlimited acquisition but to replace these limits with other conventional rules, based on consent\u201d; <span class=\"n-sch\">A. John Simmons<\/span> places him in the middle ground between accumulation and redistribution.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"law-liberty-toleration-and-the-right-to-revolution\">Law &amp; Liberty, Toleration, and the Right to Revolution<\/h3>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">Law &amp; liberty<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Against Hobbes\u2019s \u201cliberty is where the law is silent,\u201d Locke answers <span class=\"n-term\">\u201cNo law, no liberty.\u201d<\/span> Liberty is not absence of restraint but living under <span class=\"n-term\">just law<\/span> rooted in reason; unjust law has no moral validity, and government cannot deprive people of natural rights. (In modern constitutional terms, the idea is linked to reasonable restrictions under <span class=\"n-law\">Article 19<\/span> and due-process values under <span class=\"n-law\">Article 21<\/span>, read through the <span class=\"n-term\">Maneka Gandhi<\/span> case.)<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">Toleration<\/span><\/p>\n<p>In <em>A Letter Concerning Toleration<\/em>, matters of conscience are personal \u2014 the state must not impose or punish belief; church and state stay separate in their proper spheres. \u201cToleration is the substantive heart of liberalism\u201d; \u201cin matters of God, nobody listens to the magistrate.\u201d A major source for later religious freedom and secularism.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">Right to revolution<\/span><\/p>\n<p>It follows from consent, trust and natural rights: government is a <span class=\"n-term\">fiduciary trust<\/span>, not a master. A ruler who acts by arbitrary will places himself in a <span class=\"n-term\">state of war<\/span> with the people, who may dissolve the government and create a new one \u2014 <span class=\"n-term\">sovereignty ultimately rests with the people<\/span>. Revolution dissolves government, not society; it is a remedy for breach of trust, used only in extreme cases.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Conditions: failure to protect rights; tyranny and arbitrary will; blocking or preventing the legislature; refusing to implement law; placing the people under a foreign prince; seizing property without consent.<\/li>\n<li>Who may resist? <span class=\"n-sch\">Richard Ashcraft<\/span>: resistance to tyranny is everyone\u2019s business; <span class=\"n-sch\">John Plamenatz<\/span> notes Locke confined it in practice to the \u201ceducated and propertied classes.\u201d <span class=\"n-sch\">George H. Sabine<\/span>: despite the right to resist, Locke was not revolutionary in temperament \u2014 above all an apologist of the Glorious Revolution. The American Declaration of Independence echoes the right to \u201calter or abolish\u201d destructive government.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div class=\"n-pyq\"><span class=\"n-pyq-chip\">UPSC 2024 \u00b7 10m<\/span><span class=\"n-pyq-q\">Comment on Locke\u2019s views on Revolution, in 150 words.<\/span><a class=\"n-pyq-a\" href=\"\/psir\/psir-pyq\/comment-on-the-lockes-views-on-revolution-in-150-words-upsc-psir-2024-1310\/\">Answer<\/a><\/div>\n<h3 id=\"locke-as-individualist-assessment-criticism-legacy\">Locke as Individualist \u2014 Assessment, Criticism, Legacy<\/h3>\n<p>\u201cLocke is an individualist out and out\u201d \u2014 though his individual is more enlightened than Hobbes\u2019s. Natural rights belong to the individual and precede the state; the state is created for the protection and happiness of the individual; authority rests on consent; government has no original powers; the people retain the right to revolt; division of powers guards liberty.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"n-quote\">\n<p>\u201cEverything in Locke\u2019s system revolves around the individual.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><cite>C.E. Vaughan (the \u201cPrince of individualists\u201d)<\/cite><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"n-lab\">Criticism<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span class=\"n-sch\">Harold Laski<\/span>: Locke reduced the state to \u201ca negative institution, a kind of gigantic limited liability company\u201d \u2014 too little attention to social justice and the weak. Bourgeois bias (<span class=\"n-sch\">Macpherson<\/span>, <span class=\"n-sch\">Marx<\/span>). Ambiguity of sovereignty: <span class=\"n-sch\">C.E. Vaughan<\/span> and <span class=\"n-sch\">Ernest Barker<\/span> say Locke had no clear doctrine of where sovereignty resides. <span class=\"n-sch\">John Dunn<\/span> warns that consent is central in form but imprecise in application. <span class=\"n-sch\">Willmoore Kendall<\/span>, paradoxically, reads Locke as a collectivist of Rousseau\u2019s brand.<\/li>\n<li><span class=\"n-sch\">George H. Sabine<\/span> finds four levels of authority \u2014 individual, community, legislature, executive \u2014 with \u201ca kind of absoluteness\u201d in each; read positively, this is awareness of institutional complexity. Locke seeks balance and harmony under natural law \u2014 nearer to Aristotle than to Plato.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">Legacy<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Intellectual ground for the Glorious Revolution and constitutional monarchy; the language of consent, limited government, rule of law, rights and representative taxation. American revolutionaries drew heavily on him (<span class=\"n-sch\">Thomas Jefferson<\/span>); he influenced <span class=\"n-sch\">Voltaire<\/span>, <span class=\"n-sch\">Rousseau<\/span>, <span class=\"n-sch\">David Hume<\/span> and the French Revolution; his separation of powers prepared the ground for Montesquieu; his property theory fed <span class=\"n-sch\">Nozick<\/span> and later liberal-capitalist thought; his toleration shaped modern secularism; his natural-rights language fed human-rights discourse.<\/p>\n<div class=\"n-pyq\"><span class=\"n-pyq-chip\">UPSC 2018 \u00b7 20m<\/span><span class=\"n-pyq-q\">\u201cJohn Locke is the father of liberalism.\u201d Explain. [<strong>Martin Seliger<\/strong>: the first to elaborate modern liberalism as a comprehensive system.]<\/span><a class=\"n-pyq-a\" href=\"\/psir\/psir-pyq\/john-locke-is-the-father-of-liberalism-explain-upsc-psir-2013-1304\/\">Answer<\/a><\/div>\n<h3 id=\"john-locke-the-foundations-of-western-democracy\">John Locke &amp; the Foundations of Western Democracy<\/h3>\n<p><span class=\"n-sch\">John Locke<\/span> is the foundational thinker of modern liberal democracy \u2014 natural rights, consent, property, limited government and resistance together shaped constitutionalism.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">State of nature<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"n-quote\">\n<p>\u201ca state of perfect freedom to order their action, and persons as they think fit within the bounds of the law of nature\u201d.<\/p>\n<p><cite>John Locke<\/cite><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>A state of freedom and equality, \u201cnot a state of licence\u201d \u2014 unlike <span class=\"n-sch\">Thomas Hobbes<\/span>\u2019s state of nature where \u201clife was nasty, short and brutish\u201d. No natural superiority; natural law limits arbitrary action.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">Natural rights &amp; property<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Rights are prior to government; the state is created to protect <span class=\"n-term\">life, liberty and property<\/span>.<\/li>\n<li>Property is used broadly \u2014 <span class=\"n-term\">life, liberty and estates<\/span>, including fundamental human rights; these rights are inalienable.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<blockquote class=\"n-quote\">\n<p>\u201clives, liberty and estates which I call by the general name \u2014 property\u201d.<\/p>\n<p><cite>John Locke<\/cite><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">Consent &amp; constitutional government<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Authority is legitimate only when based on <span class=\"n-term\">consent<\/span>; the social contract creates political society. Consent moves in stages: individuals agree to form a community \u2192 the community creates legislative and other institutions by <span class=\"n-term\">majority<\/span> \u2192 taxation requires consent, directly or through representatives.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"n-quote\">\n<p>\u201cGovernment is a contract established to protect individuals\u2019 natural rights, and its authority depends on the consent of the people.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><cite>John Locke<\/cite><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">Limited government &amp; right of resistance<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Government exists to protect rights, not to rule as an end in itself; power must be limited by law.<\/li>\n<li>If government violates natural rights, people may <span class=\"n-term\">resist or overthrow<\/span> it. Separation of legislative, executive and judicial functions protects liberty.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<blockquote class=\"n-quote\">\n<p>\u201cWherever law ends, tyranny begins\u201d.<\/p>\n<p><cite>John Locke<\/cite><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">Locke\u2019s logical chain \u2192 from natural freedom to constitutional government.<\/span> <span class=\"n-term\">State of nature<\/span> \u2014 freedom &amp; equality within natural law; not licence. \u2192 <span class=\"n-term\">Natural rights<\/span> \u2014 life, liberty, property (inalienable, pre-state). \u2192 <span class=\"n-term\">Consent \/ social contract<\/span> \u2014 authority legitimate only by consent; majority rule; taxation by consent. \u2192 <span class=\"n-term\">Limited government<\/span> \u2014 rule of law, separation of powers; \u201cwherever law ends, tyranny begins\u201d. \u2192 <span class=\"n-term\">Right of resistance<\/span> \u2014 if government violates rights, people may resist or overthrow. \u2192 <span class=\"n-term\">Liberal constitutionalism<\/span> \u2014 Locke central to consent-based, rights-protecting democracy.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">Liberal constitutionalism vs liberal democracy<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">Two distinct logics \u2014 mature liberal democracy needs both<\/span><\/p>\n<div class=\"n-tw\">\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>CONSTITUTIONALISM \u2014 restrains power<\/th>\n<th>DEMOCRACY \u2014 authorises power<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>rule of law \u00b7 individual rights \u00b7 checks &amp; balances \u00b7 independent judiciary \u00b7 constitutional restraint.<\/td>\n<td>popular sovereignty \u00b7 competitive elections \u00b7 universal adult franchise \u00b7 consent-based government.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<blockquote class=\"n-quote\">\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">Liberal democracy = both.<\/span> Without constitutionalism \u2192 majority may turn oppressive; without democracy \u2192 constitutional limits stay elitist or incomplete.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"n-sch\">Fareed Zakaria<\/span>: <em>\u201cconstitutional liberalism is theoretically different and historically distinct from democracy\u201d.<\/em> <span class=\"n-term\">Stephen Holmes<\/span>: <em>by restricting officials\u2019 arbitrary powers, a liberal constitution can increase the state\u2019s capacity to mobilise collective resources.<\/em><\/p>\n<div class=\"n-pyq\"><span class=\"n-pyq-chip\">UPSC 2025 \u00b7 20m<\/span><span class=\"n-pyq-q\">Locke\u2019s constitutionalism, freedom &amp; property as the base of western democracy.<\/span><\/div>\n<blockquote class=\"n-quote\">\n<p><span class=\"n-lab\">UPSC 2009<\/span> \u2014 Liberal constitutionalism precedes liberal democracy<\/p>\n<p><cite>comment.<\/cite><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote class=\"n-quote\">\n<p><span class=\"n-term\">2009 answer-spine:<\/span> constitutional limits historically appeared before mass democracy in the Atlantic world \u2014 <span class=\"n-sch\">James Madison<\/span>: \u201cyou must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself\u201d. But post-colonial India adopted universal suffrage and liberal constitutionalism <em>together<\/em> \u2192 the sequence is not mechanical; where elections precede restraint, democracy may slide into <span class=\"n-term\">illiberal democracy<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div class=\"n-next\"><a href=\"\/psir\/notes\/hobbes\/\"><em>Previous<\/em><b>Hobbes<\/b><\/a><a class=\"r\" href=\"\/psir\/notes\/john-s-mill\/\"><em>Next<\/em><b>John S. Mill<\/b><\/a><\/div>\n<p><\/main><\/p>\n<aside class=\"n-rail\">\n<h4>On this page<\/h4>\n<p><a href=\"#john-locke-1632-1704-the-father-of-liberalism\">John Locke (1632\u20131704) \u2014 the father of liberalism<\/a><a href=\"#state-of-nature-natural-law-natural-rights\">State of Nature, Natural Law &amp; Natural Rights<\/a><a href=\"#social-contract-consent-society-above-government\">Social Contract &amp; Consent \u2014 society above government<\/a><a href=\"#civil-society-government-the-separation-of-powers\">Civil Society, Government &amp; the Separation of Powers<\/a><a href=\"#theory-of-property\">Theory of Property<\/a><a href=\"#law-liberty-toleration-and-the-right-to-revolution\">Law &amp; Liberty, Toleration, and the Right to Revolution<\/a><a href=\"#locke-as-individualist-assessment-criticism-legacy\">Locke as Individualist \u2014 Assessment, Criticism, Legacy<\/a><a href=\"#john-locke-the-foundations-of-western-democracy\">John Locke &amp; the Foundations of Western Democracy<\/a><\/aside>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Locke for the UPSC PSIR optional \u2014 PSIR Notes \u203a I-A Political Theory and Indian Politics \u203a Locke Paper I \u00b7 Political Theory and Indian Politics Locke Syllabus \u00b7 Paper I-A \u00b7 10 \u2014 We<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"fx_note_key":"I-A.10.5","fx_note_sec":"I-A","fx_note_point":"10","fx_note_desc":"Locke for the UPSC PSIR optional \u2014 PSIR Notes \u203a I-A Political Theory and Indian Politics \u203a Locke Paper I \u00b7 Political Theory and Indian Politics Locke Syllabus \u00b7 Paper I-A \u00b7 10 \u2014 We","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-3483","psir_note","type-psir_note","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/psir_note\/3483","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/psir_note"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/psir_note"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/psir_note\/3483\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5215,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/psir_note\/3483\/revisions\/5215"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3483"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}