BLOCK –VI

LOCKE
UNIT 12 LOCKE: CONSTITUTIONALISM AND
LIMITED GOVERNMENT⁎
Structure
12.0 Objectives
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Creation of the Social Contract
12.3 Constitutional Limited Government
12.3.1 Role of Consent
12.3.2 Right to Dissent
12.4 Legacy of Locke’s Constitutionalism
12.5 Let Us Sum Up
12.6 References
12.7 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

12.0 OBJECTIVES
The aim of this unit is to familiarise you with the nature and key aspects of
English political philosopher, John Locke’s ideas on constitutionalism and
limited government. After studying this unit, you should be able to:
 Describe the nature of Locke’s social contract
 Explain Locke’s views on limited government
 Examine Locke’s perspective on the right to dissent; and
 Evaluate the legacy of Locke’s constitutionalism and limited government

12.1 INTRODUCTION
John Locke’s discussion on legitimate political authority in his famous work,
Two Treatises of Government (1689 CE) is one of the earliest attempts to sketch
out a liberal, constitutional government that is limited and is also accountable.
Locke’s conceptualization of such a government is very much a continuation of
his ideas on natural law and natural rights which were discussed in detail in the
previous unit. Locke’s belief that natural rights of life, liberty and property
predate society and exist in the state of nature leads him to the conclusion that
any government that is constituted has to function in line with them and not in

⁎
Dr. Abhiruchi Ojha, Assistant Professor, Department of Politics & Governance, Central
University of Kashmir

160
violation of them. Hence, such a government first of all has to be setup only with Locke:
Constitutionalism and
the consent of the governed which is what necessitates a social contract. Natural Government
Locke dismisses the idea floated by some of his contemporaries who supported
an absolutist monarch that a monarch’s power is comparable to paternal power
i.e. the power of a father over a child. Locke argues that paternal power applies
only over children and that too only till they reach the age of reason, after which
they can think for themselves and are no longer subject to paternal power. Hence,
it is absurd to justify the political power of monarchs by comparing it to paternal
power because that would rest on the patently false assumption that the subjects
are children who cannot reason. Locke also contends that conjugal power is also
not comparable to the powers of a government because it is restricted to the
domain of family and is not political in nature. Having dismissed such popular
justifications for political power during his period, Locke sets out to detail his
views on legitimate political authority.

12.2 CREATION OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

In Locke’s view, the only legitimate political authority is one that is set up
through a social contract that is consented to by the people. However, before such
a social contract and what it might entail can be discussed, Locke has to address a
pressing question, why would people want to leave the state of nature in the first
place? Hobbesian state of nature was a violent mess and thus, it was obvious why
people would be eager to escape it. On the other hand, as noted in the previous
unit, Locke himself contends that peaceful coexistence in accordance with natural
law is possible in his conceptualization of state of nature. If that is the case, then
why is there a need for a social contract and a government?
Locke answers this question by pointing out that the state of nature lacks three
important benefits offered by civil society i.e. “an established, settled, known
law”, “a known and indifferent judge” and the “power to back and support the
sentence”.
“First, There wants an established, settled, known law, received and
allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong… for
though the law of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational
creatures; yet men being biassed by their interest, as well as ignorant for
want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them...
Secondly, In the state of nature there wants a known and indifferent
judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the
established law: for every one in that state being both judge and
executioner of the law of nature, men being partial to themselves, passion
and revenge is very apt to carry them too far… Thirdly, In the state of
nature there often wants power to back and support the sentence when
right, and to give it due execution” (Locke, Second Treatise of
Government, Chapter IX).
State of nature has natural law, but since it is not established, settled and clearly
known as the written laws of a state, there can be causes for misinterpretation and 161
 rival readings. Similarly, while each individual is the executor of natural law in
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE the state of nature, the presence of an independent judge is beneficial because it
brings impartiality and credibility to the execution of laws. Lastly and probably
more importantly, the presence of a common authority in the form of an
executive to implement the law would mean that violators of laws would be
surely punished by the power of the state. Whereas, in the state of nature, if the
violator is powerful, he or she might get away with crimes. Hence, it is in order
to attain these three benefits of civil society, Locke contends that people would
consent to leave the state of nature and create a civil society. It is worth noting
that these three benefits mentioned by Locke roughly correspond to the functions
of a legislature, judiciary and executive. The motivation for relinquishing the
state of nature for the people is to better preserve their natural rights to life,
liberty and property through the above mentioned benefits of civil society. State
of nature due to the lack of such benefits can more easily descend into a state of
war. This is more probable especially after the introduction of money and the rise
of social inequalities. People with property would, thus, want the better
protection offered by civil society. Hence this leads to the creation of the social
contract.
By entering a civil society, Locke argues that people do have to give up some of
the liberties and rights they enjoyed in the state of nature in return for the benefits
enjoyed.In the state of nature, people have the right to do whatever they want
within the bounds of natural law. However, once entering civil society, this
freedom will have to be given up partially because the civil law will have to be
obeyed by everyone and it will likely be stricter and more detailed than natural
law. As noted in the previous unit, natural liberty i.e. obedience only to natural
law, will get transformed into social liberty i.e. obedience to civil laws that come
out of one’s consent.
“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on
earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to
have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in society, is
to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in
the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of
any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in
it” (Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter IV).
Another power everyone had in the state of nature which has to be fully given up
after entering civil society is the power of each individual to punish violations of
natural law. In a civil society, the power to sentence and punish crimes lies with
the judge and the executive. Hence, individuals cannot be the judge and
executors of the law once they consent to the social contract and enter civil
society.

Check Your Progress Exercise 1

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
162 ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of
the unit.
 1. According to Locke, what are the three benefits offered by civil society Locke:
Constitutionalism and
over the state of nature? Natural Government
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. Which privileges of the state of nature have to be given up partially and
fully once someone enters civil society?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……

12.3 CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITED GOVERNMENT

Having explained the reasons that motivate people in the state of nature to
consent to the creation of a commonwealth through a social contract, Locke
proceeds to show how the commonwealth ought to be structured in order to keep
it limited, efficient and under check.
Locke argues that, once created through consent, key decisions about the
commonwealth will be decided based on the principle of majority and those who
agreed to the social contract and the creation of commonwealth have to consent
to subject themselves to the majority principle. While unanimous consent is
desirable, Locke concedes that it might not be practical in all scenarios. The
legitimacy of the commonwealth will depend on the proper functioning of the
legislative power, the judicial power and the executive power in protecting the
natural rights of the subjects. It has to be noted that unlike in Montesquieu’s later
categorization wherein judicial power is mentioned separately, in Locke’s
formulation, judicial power gets categorized under executive power.
The creation of the commonwealth has to be followed by the majority deciding
on the form of government. For Locke, who or which body exercises legislative
power determines the form of government. This is so because legislative power is
supreme within the government. The majority can choose to establish a
democracy, by which they keep the legislative powers with themselves. They can
decide to establish an oligarchy by giving legislative powers in the hands of a
few or a monarchy by giving legislative powers to a single person. Any form of
163
government is appropriate as long as the legislative body complies with its
 mandate and does not exceed its limitations. Locke, however, expresses
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE preference for some kind of elected, representative legislative body and he also
supports experiments in mixed forms of government. Once determined, it is the
duty of this legislative body to enact laws in line with natural law and for the
benefit of the commonwealth. The creation of the commonwealth and the
establishment of the form of government are two separate acts with the former
being a contract and the latter a mere act. This means that the majority can
change the form of government by another act if they find the legislative body
incapable or inefficient or stepping beyond its limits. Thus, for Locke, ultimate
power lies with the people who constitute the commonwealth, while the
legislature is supreme within the government. It is for the same reason the
legislature cannot transfer its power to any other body as the people have given
this power only to them. Locke also suggests some conditions on the nature of
laws that can be enacted by the legislature. Firstly, he argues that the laws put
forward by the legislature must apply equally on all without any partiality. They
should serve the common good. He further contends that the legislature should
not increase taxes on property without the proper consent of the people involved.
Property after all is a natural right for Locke. He also lists several practical
suggestions in order to prevent the legislature from stepping beyond its bounds.
For example, he is concerned about some people serving for a long time in the
legislature, thus resulting in a permanent political class who might start to
consider themselves as different from rest of society. Similarly, he does not think
it is necessary for the legislature to be in session all the time or to even meet
frequently as that might once again tempt them to step beyond their bounds.
The people also set up a federative power whose role is to carry out the external
relations of the commonwealth. With respect to relations with other states, Locke
posits that the commonwealth should be considered a single entity, akin to an
individual. This individual is instate of nature with other states as there is no
common international authority. Hence, as per his conceptualization of the state
of nature, natural law is applicable between states when it comes to international
relations. It is the role of the federative power to conduct the international
relations of the commonwealth with other states. The federative power can
operate in consonance with the executive power.
The people also have to set up an executive power which is charged with the
implementation of the law. The executive can take the shape of a monarchy or
any other suitable form. The executive is charged with both implementation as
well as adjudication of law as judicial power is also categorized under the
executive by Locke. Hence, next to the legislative body, the executive that is the
most important institution in the commonwealth. Unlike the legislative body
which need not be in session often, Locke notes that the executive needs to
function all the time to properly implement the laws enacted by the legislative
body. The executive is subservient to the legislative body and cannot go against
any law enacted by the legislative. However, Locke, having been a close observer
of English politics for a long time, recognises that at times unprecedented and
164 unforeseen situations might arise which are incapable of being addressed in
advance by the legislative. This could also involve aggression by other states. Locke:
Constitutionalism and
Hence, Locke grants prerogative powers for the executive to deal with Natural Government
contingencies that are not explicitly dealt with by the legislature. Where there is
silence of the law, the executive has room to act on its own. On very rare
occasions, the executive can also act against a law which has become detrimental
to the common good due to a changed scenario. Since the legislative body is not
always in session, it might take some time for it to respond to emergencies and
hence, the executive needs these powers to respond effectively to fast moving
situations.
“This power to act according to discretion, for the public good, without
the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it, is that which is
called prerogative: for since in some governments the law making power
is not always in being, and is usually too numerous, and so too slow, for
the dispatch requisite to execution; and because also it is impossible to
foresee, and so by laws to provide for, all accidents and necessities that
may concern the public, or to make such laws as will do no harm, if they
are executed with an inflexible rigour, on all occasions, and upon all
persons that may come in their way; therefore there is a latitude left to
the executive power, to do many things of choice which the laws do not
prescribe” (Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter XIV)
The executive is also bestowed by Locke with the powers to call and adjourn
legislative sessions. Locke argues that the prerogatives of the executive are based
on a trust that the institution will act in accordance with the spirit of the social
contract for the sake of common good. As long as the executive abides by that
trust, its actions remain legitimate but any transgression can lead the people to
replace the executive. Locke insists that executive prerogative is not a right but a
trust. Lock emphasises this point because an enlightened leader of the executive
might use this trust wisely, thereby expand executive prerogatives. This
expanded executive prerogative might be claimed as an inalienable right by the
successor citing precedent which is want Locke wants to prevent by arguing that
it is not a right, but a trust placed by the people, who can take it away.
The preceding discussion indicates how Locke seeks to achieve separation of
powers between the legislative and executive to maintain a balance of power
within the government. The people who are the authors of the social contract
determine the form of the legislative body and the executive and retain ultimate
authority. Any violation of the constitutional limits set up by the people would
delegitimize the legislative body and the executive. In the larger sense, one also
has to keep in mind that Locke expected the commonwealth to uphold the
principles of natural law and respect the natural rights of individuals. Hence, all
the institutions of the government and the commonwealth have to adhere to
natural law and respect the natural rights of life, liberty and property of all
individuals.

12.3.1 Role of Consent

165
 It is important to discuss the role of consent in the Lockean constitutional
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE framework for legitimate government. It is based on individual consent that
people exit the state of nature and create a political society i.e. the
commonwealth. Similarly, Locke also argues that apart from the universal
obligations imposed by natural law on everyone, all other obligations have to be
based on consent. Locke does claim that a person can become a full member of a
political society only giving express consent. However, this becomes problematic
because of the fact that few citizens in real societies have actually expressly
consented to their respective governments. Locke, aware of this problem,
proposes his theory of tacit consent. Locke argues that by continuing to live in a
commonwealth, benefitting from its facilities like roads etc., participating in its
activities and also by inheriting property that is recognized by a particular
government, people give tacit consent to the commonwealth. While most people
might not have expressly consented to the commonwealth, they end up giving
tacit consent which in his view is also valid.

“I say, that every man, that hath any possessions, or enjoyment, of any
part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit
consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that
government, during such enjoyment, as any one under it; whether this his
possession be of land, to him and his heirs for ever, or a lodging only for
a week; or whether it be barely travelling freely on the highway; and in
effect, it reaches as far as the very being of any one within the territories
of that government” (Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter
VIII)

Hence, for Locke, consent might take the form of direct, express consent or
indirect, tacit consent.

12.3.2 Right to Dissent

Legitimate political power for Hobbes is based on consent, given by people
through a social contract for protection of their natural rights. It is exercised
within the limits set by the social contract and exists to serve the common good.
In contrast, tyrannical power is the illegitimate, absolutist power exercised by a
despot over the life and property of his subjects without any regard for natural
law or natural rights. This can happen in a commonwealth by a variety of ways.
The executive or the legislative body might exceed its limit or fail to do its
duties. Whichever way it happens, when people end up with a tyrannical power
that seeks to exercise authority beyond legitimate limits, Locke insists that the
people have a right to dissent, rebel and dissolve that commonwealth.
“Whosoever uses force without right, as every one does in society, who
does it without law, puts himself into a state of war with those against
whom he so uses it; and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all
other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to
resist the aggressor” (Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter
166
XIX)
This right comes from the fact that the commonwealth was set up in the first Locke:
Constitutionalism and
place for the protection of their natural rights. Hence, if their natural rights are Natural Government
violated, then there is no reason for people to continue obeying the laws of the
commonwealth because their natural rights would be better protected in the state
of nature itself. Locke argues that people will judge ultimately, if the executive or
the legislature have violated the terms of the social contract. Locke contends that
people even have the right to kill or execute those who transgress the limits of
legitimate government.

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of
the unit.
1. According to Locke, why are executive prerogatives needed?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. According to Locke, when is it justified to dissent?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……

12.4 LEGACY OF LOCKE’S CONSTITUTIONALISM

As noted previously, Locke’s views on constitutional government with limited
powers has influenced many great constitutions of the world. It also inspired
subsequent philosophers and holds a prominent place in liberal political
philosophy. Some of Locke’s ideas have also come under substantial criticism.
For instance, Locke’s idea of tacit consent has been accused by many scholars of
diluting the principle of consent itself, which is a core element of his philosophy.
Simmons (1992) argues that Lockean theory of tacit consent allows people to
give consent even without even being aware of it, which in his view is
unacceptable. In his view, tacit consent is too low a standard.Thus, it is argued
that Locke’s repeated emphasis on consent being critical for legitimate political
authority is greatly compromised by his theory of tacit consent. Dunn (1969), 167
 however, argues that Locke uses the term consent to mean lack of unwillingness,
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE rather than a deliberate affirmative consent. Thus, if a person is not unwilling to
continue living in a commonwealth, he or she has given consent. Pitkin (1965) on
the other hand gives a more radical interpretation of Locke by arguing that
consent is not central to the Lockean framework. She argues that the reason
Locke can dilute his theory of consent is because ultimately, a commonwealth is
judged not based on consent, but based on its adherence to natural law. Thus, in
her view, Locke dilutes the importance of express consent because for him
natural law was more important than consent. What constitutes real consent and
its importance for legitimate political obligation continues to be greatly debated.
Further, Locke has also been criticised by socialist leaning scholars like
Macpherson (1962) for prioritizing property rights over other natural rights,
thereby for all practical purposes allowing full membership of the commonwealth
only to those with property. For instance, while discussing representation in the
legislative body, Locke suggests that it can be based on people’s tax contribution
which would in effect mean, people with more property who pay higher taxes
will have higher representation in the legislative body. This lends support to
Macpherson’s criticism. However, it has to be noted that Locke does consider
property as a natural right and hence, even the legislative body cannot violate a
natural right. Hence, as noted earlier, Locke would never support a redistribution
of property without the consent of the people concerned even if the legislative
body wishes it. Moreover, Locke also considers right to property as involving
both right to life and liberty and hence, one can argue that he does support equal
protection of all natural rights. While Locke will not support the arbitrary taking
away of the property of a propertied person, he will equally not support the
arbitrary taking away of the life and liberty of a person without property. It still
might be true that the Lockean commonwealth will serve the interests of the
propertied class more because they have more to be protected than those without
property.
Locke’s theory of sovereignty has also been criticised as being ambiguous and
incoherent. The legislative body is supposed to be supreme within the
government but as noted earlier, Locke lays down conditions that has to be
followed by the legislative body while framing laws. A true sovereign cannot be
subject to conditions. The same principle disqualifies the executive from being
the sovereign. The people who create the commonwealth also do so subject to
natural law. The Lockean concept of sovereignty is radically different from
Hobbes. For Hobbes, the sovereign is the unquestionable, indivisible, absolute,
perpetual power who makes and judges laws, apart from having other powers.
There is no comparable institution or body in the Lockean framework. The only
unquestionable, absolute and perpetual entity in Lockean political philosophy is
natural law which is the legitimate source of any authority for him. Sabine (1973)
points out that Locke has multiple levels of authority. It starts with the individual
and his natural rights. Individuals come together as a community to create the
commonwealth and hence, the community forms the next level of authority. The
168 community, however, cannot violate individual natural rights. The people of the
community, after entering the social contract, create the legislative body which Locke:
Constitutionalism and
makes laws, but is subservient to the community. Further, there is also the Natural Government
executive which has certain prerogative powers, but is underneath the legislative
as well as the community. However, it might not be fair to criticise Lockean
theory of sovereignty from a Hobbesian perspective. Lockean framework of
sovereignty is more in line with scholars like Aquinas who treated sovereignty as
existing in a higher power like god or in natural law and reason. For Locke,
natural law or the power behind it is the ultimate sovereign, not any human
institution. What he seeks to construct is a form of government that will function
without transgressing this higher principle. Hence, Locke’s attempt is to create a
limited government which will not transgress the natural rights of individuals.
For that purpose, it makes practical sense to have multiple levels of authority
with checks and balances, instead of having an absolutist sovereign.

12.5 LET US SUM UP

Locke argues that due to the lack of a settled law, an impartial judge and an
executive with the power to implement the law in the state of nature, people will
be inclined to enter into a social contract that creates a civil society which has
those benefits. By agreeing to the social contract, people partially give up their
liberty to live only in accordance to natural law. By giving consent to the creation
of civil society, people agree to obey civil law, which might be stricter than
natural law. People also fully give up the right to judge others for violations of
natural law which they had in the state of nature. In civil society, judging
violations of law will be the role of the judiciary. Having created a civil society,
people then set up a legislative body to enact laws in accordance with natural
law. They also set up an executive to implement the laws passed by the
legislative. The executive is subservient to the legislative body as the latter is the
supreme power within the government. However, both are subservient to the
people who created them, who have the right to change them if they exceed their
mandate. Thus, Locke also argues that people have a right to dissent and
overthrow a government that does not operate within its limits and transgresses
the natural rights of people. Most contemporary constitutions have adopted the
principle of separation of powers and that is what Locke pioneered by proposing
multiple levels of authority. One could, thus, argue that Locke’s approach has
been vindicated by history.

12.6 REFERENCES
Anstey, P. (2011). John Locke & Natural Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ashcraft, R. (1986). Revolutionary Politics and Locke’s Two Treatises of
Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chappell, V. (1994). The Cambridge Companion to Locke. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
169
 Colman, J. (1983). John Locke’s Moral Philosophy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE University Press.
Connolly, P. (2020). John Locke. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/locke/
Dunn, J. (1969). The Political Thought of John Locke. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Grant, R. (1987). John Locke’s Liberalism. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Hampsher-Monk, I. (2001). A History of Modern Political Thought: Major
Political Thinkers from Hobbes to Marx. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Locke, J. (1689). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Available Online
at Project Gutenberg. URL:http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10615/10615-
h/10615-h.htm
Locke, J. (1689). A Letter Concerning Toleration. Available Online at Library of
Liberty. URL:https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/locke-the-works-vol-5-four-letters-
concerning-toleration
Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise of Government. Available Online at Project
Gutenberg. URL: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm
Macpherson, C. (1962). The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism:
Hobbes to Locke. Ontario: Oxford University Press.
Mendus, S. (1991). Locke on Toleration in Focus. London: Routledge.
Moseley, A. (2020). John Locke: Political Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. URL: https://www.iep.utm.edu/locke-po/
Pitkin, H. (1965). Obligation and Consent—I.American Political Science Review.
59(4): 990–999.
Sabine, G. (1973). A History of Political Theory. San Diego: Dryden Press.
Simmons, A. J. (1992). The Lockean Theory of Rights. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Sheridan, P. (2020). Locke’s Moral Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-moral/
Sreenivasan, G. (1995). The Limits of Lockean Rights in Property. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Strauss, Leo. (1953). Natural Right and History. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Uzgalis, W. (2020). John Locke. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
Waldron, J. (2009). John Locke, in D. Boucher and P. Kelly ed. Political
Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press
170
Walsh, J. (2020). Locke: Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL: Locke:
Constitutionalism and
https://www.iep.utm.edu/locke-et/ Natural Government

12.7 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
1. Your answer should highlight the following points:
 State of nature does not have an established, settled, known law
 State of nature does not have an impartial judge
 State of nature does not have an executive power to implement law
and punish offenders
2. Your answer should highlight the following points:
 Natural liberty in the state of nature meant one had to obey only
natural law. It is partially given up when entering civil society
because one now needed to obey civil law too which might be stricter
than natural law.
 Right to judge and punish others for violations of natural law is fully
given up when one enters civil society.

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

1. Your answer should highlight the following points:

Executive prerogatives are needed for the government to act
decisively during emergencies that are unprecedented and unforeseen
by existing laws.
 They are based on trust and are not a right.
2. Your answer should highlight the following points:
 Right to dissent flows from natural law and natural rights which are
supreme in the Lockean framework.
 Since people enter the social contract to protect their natural rights, if
any despotic power arises and violates those rights, people have a
right to dissent.

171