CERTIFICATION ……………………………………………………………….. i

DEDICATION ……………………………………………………………………ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ………………………………………………………..iii

BIODATA OF JOHN LOCKE ……………………………………………………v

INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………1

1.1 GLOBAL VIEW OF LIBERALISM …………………………………….4

2.1 THE MEANING OF PROPERTY ………………………………………..10

3.1 THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF JOHN STUART MILL …………..21

4.1 CRITICAL EVALUATION …………………………………………………..32

BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………………………...38

Etymologically the term "liberalism" was first used by Spanish political party "liberales" in the early 19th century, which means to liberate or to set free.

The great leaders of British Liberalism was Prime Minister William E. Gladstone. His Liberal party stood for extending the right to vote, for free trade, for resistance to religious domination of government and other social institutions and for improving the conditions of labourers and the middle classes.

Liberalism’s leading economic philosopher was John Stuart Mill. Politically the movement was influenced by the 17th century philosopher John Locke.

On the continent of Europe, Liberal Ideas led to the revolutions that in 1842 swept Hungary, Italy, Germany, France and other countries. In a broad sense liberalism means political beliefs which emphasize freedom of individual from the external restraint.

Liberalism is a political and economic philosophy that emphasizes freedom, equality, and opportunity. Sequel to the foregoing, It is an established fact that liberals unlike conservatives have in many ways helped the society at large. The New Encyclopedia Britannica states:

Liberals have generally favoured

More rapid social conservatives, who

On the other hand emphasize

Ordinary tradition and ownership

Of private property. 1

According to the Dictionary of philosophy liberalism is:

A political ideology centered upon

The individual, thought of as possessing

Rights against the government,

Including rights of equality of respect,

Freedom of expression and action, and

Freedom from religious and ideological

Constraint. 2

As far as this paper is concerned, I wish to state that liberalism is a confusing term because its meaning and emphasis have changed considerably over the years.

Liberalism is an attitude of action opposing established forms of authority considered restrictive of individual freedom and social progress. Liberalism and democracy are now usually thought to have common aims but in the past many liberals considered democracy pernicious because it encouraged mass participation in politics. A distinction must therefore be made between liberalism which conceives social change as gradual, flexible and adaptive and radicalism which conceives of social change as fundamental and based on new principles of authority.

_________________________________________

ANTIQUITY: The right to rebel against a government that severally restricts personal freedom was one of the principle doctrines of early liberalism. Liberal revolution led to the establishment of many government based on the rule of law and the consent of the governed.

The Liberal philosophy is clearly stated in the declaration of independence and in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. In turn Jefferson of America was influenced by the English philosopher John Locke. Liberalism did not just embrace politics but also economics which were closely connected until 1900’s.

Modern Liberalism as earlier stated has undergone a significant change of emphasis in the 1900’s. in the late 1800’s many liberals begun to think of freedom less in terms of freedom of opportunity.

Today liberals favour inactive role for the government in regulating the economy in the public interest. They support government programme to provide economic security and ease human suffering. Such programmes include, reducing unemployment, insurance, minimum wage, law, old age pensions, health insurance, civil rights legislation and various anti-poverty measures.

Modern liberals claim a kingship with early liberalism by saying that they too behave, in the primary importance of individual freedom. But they maintain that government must actively remove obstacles to the enjoyment of that freedom.

People who support the early idea of economic liberalism are today frequently described as conservatives. Thus economic liberalism in the words of PROF. Aja Akpuru Aja:

Liberal view of political economy

Is concerned about how political

And economic forces influences

Each other to effect economic

Strengthen the existing political

System. 3

As a social philosophy, liberalism is identified with the maximum freedom for individuals of classes. As a historical force it is identified with the rising middle class and the liberation of the individual from feudal restraints. The hallmarks of liberalism have been individualism, scientific progress, economic opportunity and limited government.

Modern liberals are opposed by the conservatives on the one hand and by radicals such as communists on the other hand.

Conservatives claim that liberals could achieve social betterment at the expenses of personal liberty and that liberals advocate changes where none is needed. The conservatives claim that they are true liberals because they advance the cause of personal liberty by opposing the governments control that present day liberals advocate.

Liberals opine that social changes have made certain government controls necessary, to achieve desirable progress for most people.

Twentieth century conservatives correspond roughly to nineteenth century liberals who stressed individual liberty from government, whereas twentieth century liberals stress individual liberty through government.

Radicals accuse liberals of being allied with the conservatives, this is because liberals unlike radicals deplore drastic change especially when achieved by violence.

All said and done, since 1896 most United States liberals have been said to be democrats.

Political philosophy is a branch of philosophy which studies political organization such as the nation, the state government. Sequel to the forgoing Dr Prince David Nyong states:

Political philosophy examines

In essence political philosophy does not study political organization alone but also gives critical analyses to it.

On another note, political philosophy is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with the concepts and arguments involved in political opinion. The meaning of "political" is itself one of the major problems of political philosophy.

Broadly, one may characterize as political all those practice and institutions that are concerned with government. For a political philosophy to be complete. It must have an account of law and constitution.

As far as this work is concerned, its subject matter hinges on liberalism in John Locke’s political philosophy.

Locke highlighted his political ideology "liberalism" in his book called second Treatise on civil Government. This ideology is all about emphasis on freedom, equality and opportunity, which can be said to be its main focus.

In the two Treatise of civil Government, Locke not only vindicates the lawfulness of resistance in the language of rights and natural rights but goes on to locate the authority to resist with the body of the people even with any single man, if deprived of their right. Any ruler who subverts the law as a clearly defined legal authority, asserts and exercises both absolute and arbitrary power, is according to Locke a deliberate action for private ends.

According to Locke, liberalism is the beginning of enlightenment and age of reason, a time of our intellectual awakening when man, stepping out of his shackles began to use his rational pits of mysticism.

Locke was in fact the first to deliberate the elements of what we know as the separation of powers. Thus it is not surprising that the system of checks and balances and the separation of powers written into the constitution were ultimately designed according to John Adams to achieve the Lockian goal of protecting the life, liberty and property of he citizens.

Locke’s treatise were written in defense of the glorious revolution; which is a product of liberalism. Liberalism in this context is a movement or ideology against the restraint of human rights, freedom, equality and opportunity.

Locke thus asserts a right of revolution

And he turns the table on those who

The question, whether man would voluntarily put himself under government is but the first question: there then follows along the next, "what form of government is best". Locke’s view, more consistent with the social contract theory, was that there was no need for government to have great powers, which in the final analysis, would only be needed to keep people down. At any rate Locke recognized the real danger of leaving absolute power to any one, for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property and subverts the end of government. Sequel to the foregoing; Locke asks the question

For what property have

I in that which another

may by right take when

he pleases to himself? 1

Locke frowns at absolute arbitrary power over any other, to destroy, or take away, the life or property of another.

Locke opined that the original state of nature was happy and characterized by reason and tolerance. He further maintained that all human beings, in their natural state, were equal and free to pursue life, health, liberty and possessions; and that these were inalienable human rights.

In civil government Locke expounds the individualistic view of private property, and again lays down the quintessence of individualism. The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into common wealth, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property and rights.

Although human rights is a widely held belief which accredit to human beings certain rights justified by moral principles, Locke posits human rights as an offspring of natural law which is his basis of liberalism.

_____________________________

(Bì¥Á "A

"A


Locke’s liberalism answers the questions why we should obey the law? When is it permissible to resist the law?

Locke in his second treatise of government did not depict men’s necessary behavior or motivation, as Hobbes had done, but assert men’s natural rights.

There is a corresponding assumption that the fundamental justification of government lies in its capacity to preserve the natural rights of its citizens and in particular, their untrampeled enjoyment of their lives, liberties and property.

It is an established fact that Locke in his view posited that there are certain areas of human conduct that are immune from government interference; these are what Locke calls "rights".

Sequel to the foregoing, this doctrine is the direct ancestor of the Bill of Rights in the American constitution.

In due course the state of nature gives room for accommodating other men’s right and not interfering in their rights thus:

And that all men may be

Restrained from invading others

Rights, and from doing hurt

To one another, and the law of

Every political theory which sets out to justify or advocate a particular system of government, or a limited or unlimited degree of obligation of the citizen to the state, must

rest on an explicit or implicit theory of the human nature; based on natural law and natural human rights which is the bases of Locke’s political ideology. For want of space, I will not go into the intricacies of Locke’s doctrine of Human Rights.

Human right is the subject matter of Locke’s Liberalism; consequently Locke made emphasis on the right to property.

Locke assumes that people must have found it to be necessary to establish political societies when the concepts of "meum" and "tuum" first entered their vocabulary and differences then began to arise within the body of the people concerning the question of ownership and distribution of material goods. He also assumed that we have the right, to dispose of, within the bounds of the laws of nature, those properties which are intrinsic to our personalities, and in particular our lives and liberties.

Locke has thus in effect removed all the initial natural law limits on individual appropriation, and has established a natural right to unlimited amounts of private property. It is to protect this natural unlimited right that men agree to established civil society and government.

For in governments, the laws

Regulate the right of property,

And the possession of land is

Determined by positive

Constitution. 3

We can consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence.

Locke has in effect removed all the initial natural law limits on individual appropriation, and has established a natural right to unlimited amount of private property.

Locke assumes that men naturally desire to accumulate more property than they need; consequently it is to protect this natural unlimited right that men agree to establish civil society and government.

He often uses the word "property" to refer to a man’s life and liberty as well as his possessions and to take it from him is tantamount to an assault upon his person. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being.

On the acquisition of private property, Locke

holds that God has given the earth its resources

To man in common and they are free to

appropriate it for private use through

their labour. 4

Labour makes the difference between private property and what is common. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person; this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and work of his hands can be said to be his. It follows then that whatsoever he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. Taking this instance as a case study, someone who is nourished by the mango fruits he picked up under a mango tree, or the apples he gathered from the tree in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself.

The labour that was mine, removing

them out of that common state

they were in hath fixed my property in them.5.

According to Locke God had given the earth to man for their subsistence: there was a natural right to life; and therefore each had a natural right to take to himself what was needed for sustaining his life. Consequently, every person had a property in his own person and his own labour, and so could rightfully appropriate to himself from the common whatever he mixed his labour with.

4.Richard H. Popkin & Avrum Stroll, Philosophy Made Simple

Right and convenience went together, for as a man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon, so he had no temptation to labour for more than he could make use of.

In the second Treatise of civil Government, Locke expounds the individualistic view of private property, and again lays down the quintessence of individualism. The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s unitary into commonwealths, and putting themselves under governments; is the preservation of their property. Consequently, Locke qualifies his theory of social contract, compact or covenant, by pointing out that men when they enter into society give up liberty of a kind, yet it is an intention in every one; which is better to preserve himself, his liberty and property. The power conferred on the government can never be supposed to extend farther than the common good, but is obliged to secure everyone’s property. There is a corresponding assumption that the fundamental justification of government lies in its capacity to preserve the national rights of its citizens and, in particular, their untrampeled enjoyment of their lives, liberties and property.

On the acquisition of private property, Locke maintains that labour acknowledge the natural rights to inherit property. He further explains:

a right of freedom to his person

and a right before any other man,

to inherit with his brethren, his

father’s goods.6

John Locke was the intellectual founding father of the United States Of

America, without whose ideas there would have been neither a revolution nor a revolutionary ideology of political freedom to implement at that revolution’s conclusion.

It is fundamentally to him that America, and the world, should owe its gratitude for such political and economic freedom as has existed in the past few centuries, as well as for the ideas, art and material prosperity that freedom has made possible.

Freedom according to Thomas Hobbes is thus:

Liberty, or freedom signifies the

absence of opposition.7

(Pelican Books, 1968) 261

According to Locke the state all men are naturally in is a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, or depending upon the will of any other man.

Though men have freedom in the state of nature, yet they do not have uncontrollable freedom to oppose of themselves or their possessions; thus a man has no freedom to destroy himself or any creature in his possession.

Liberalism is an attitude of action opposing established forms of authority considered restrictive of individual freedom and social progress. Liberalism and democracy are now usually thought to have common aims, but in the past, many liberals considered democracy pernicious because it encouraged

__________________________

7Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Pelican Books, 1968) 261

mass participation in politics.

Freedom does not exist in a dictatorship. In essence natural law implies natural right to freedom that exist between all individual men in their mutual possession of reason. As an example Locke notes that children do not possess the freedom possessed by adults until they have reached the age where their reason have developed government; thus John Odey states:

Today we are face to face

with one of the frightening

possibilities that Ibraham Babangida

Nigeria’s political maradona and the

Greatest enemy of democracy…8

Taking the foregoing as a case study; one will agree that Nigerians lost sense of freedom during military regime.

Accordingly, the restriction of freedom which parents place on their children are only present to the degree to which the children are unable yet to fully exercise their rational faculties, and as the children mature, the domain of their freedom progressively enlarged, until they are equal in their freedom to their parents. In this case the children who are up to reason have freedom in the state of nature.

The law of the civil government according to Locke is not an instrument to restrain the freedom of a rational being, but is framework required to preserve and enlarge it; for here there is no

_______________________________________________

8John Okwoeze Odey, Christian, Politics & The NigerianDelimma.

(Enugu: Snaap Press Ltd, 1999) 94

law, there is no freedom. For freedom is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law. In other words, law, in Locke’s view, exists only to stop the deeds of those who would transgress one another’s freedom, for the purpose of preserving that freedom. Such laws are not arbitrary, since nobody can transfer to another more than he has in himself. And consequently such a government is legitimate, because its powers derive from its citizens, who give their consent to its formation.

Philosophy of liberation is recent. Nevertheless their antecedents are older than Modern European philosophy.

Throughout the periphery there have been a belated but increasing awareness of the necessity of liberation. Enrique explains:

Liberation implies the taking over

Of power by the popular class in

Order to organize "social formation".9

Locke posts it that the natural liberty 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.

Freedom is not what Sir Robert Filmer tells us which states that freedom is a state where everyone does what he likes, live and pleases and not be tied by any laws. Freedom according to Locke is to have a standing rule to live by, common

9Enrique Dussel, Philosophy of Liberation

(New York: Mary Knoll, 10545) 76

to legislative power erect in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconsistent, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man.

2.3 STATE OF WAR

The state of war according to Locke can be said to be a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life.

Locke is a famous social contract theorist and many people believe that the social contract originates in his philosophy. The social contract states that government are formed with the consent of citizens.

Unlike Hobbes who preferred one supreme authority, a monarch, Locke posited a social contract theory, which state that governments should not have great powers. At any rate, Locke, recognized the real danger of leaving absolute power to any individual or group of individuals.

For when any number of men have, by

the consent of every individual made

a community, they have thereby made

that community one body, with a

power to act as one body, which is only

by the will and determination of the majority.10

10T.V Smith & Majorie Grene, From Descartes To Kant

(University of Chicago Press, 1942) 510

Consequently, he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does put himself into a state of war with him. Locke concluded that he who will get him into powers without his consent, would use him as he pleased when he had got him there, and also destroy him when he had a fancy to it, which is against the right of his freedom.

Following the foregoing, it is lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him; nor declared any design upon his life, because if the thief has his way by the use of force, he will get the man in his power, and take his money or what he pleases from him.

Locke further states that he, who will take his liberty, would not, when he had him in his power, take away every thing else. A declared design of force, upon a person and another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, can be said to be state of war.

Political power entails the right to make laws backed by the threat of force. There is no way to prove that one has a right to hold political power by reference to one’s ancestry unlike Hobbes who believes the state is best in a monarch. According to Locke, forming a monarch as government on such a basis leads to rule by brute force, and consequently, to civil disorder.

The last major topic treated by Locke in the second Treatises is the right of the citizens to revolt against tyrannies, i.e governments where the Governor makes not the law, but his will, the rule and his command and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his life people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, coveteousness, or any other irregular passion.

Locke’s theory of resistance does not depend on the legal fiction, of direct majority rule. Indeed the theory of resistance derives from the right of society to institute a government which is authorized by the consent of the majority which places obligation on all members of society and which functions for public good.

It is the default of government that

Justifies resistance and, hence legitimate

Locke’s Treatise were written in defence of the glorious Revolution which states that government rests on popular consent and rebellion is permissible when government subverts the ends which are the protection of life, liberty and property. Locke asserts that revolution in some circumstances are not a right but an obligation.

Locke was also a proponent of equal rights not just for men, but for women alike. He believed that subjugation of women was man made, and that women could be therefore be liberated.

Conclusively in the Two Treatise of Government Locke not only vindicates the lawfulness of resistance in the language of rights and natural rights

_________________________________________

11 Marshall John, John Locke Resistance, Religion and Responsibility (Cambridge, 1994)

but goes on to locate the authority to resist with the body of he people even with any single man, if deprived of their right. The basic claim is that any ruler who subverts the law, as a clearly defined legal authority, asserts and exercises both absolute and arbitrary power, or deliberate actions for private ends..

To sum it up, the absence of war is a result of sezene government and responsible politicians. Thus according to the pastoral statement issued by the catholic Bishops of Owerri Ecclesiastical Province at the end of their first plenary meeting held at Assumpta Pastoral Centre Owerri: from 30th January to 1st February, 2002:

We wish to state that politics,

when correctly understood as

working for the common good

is not a dirty game as it is

generally misconstrued to be but

a noble and honourable vocation.12

__________________________________________________

12Catholic Bishops OWEP, Ensuring Free And Fair Election In Nigeria (Owerri, 30th Jan-1st Feb2002) Art 2.

3.0 THOMAS JEFFERSON’S NOTION OF LIBERALISM

These rights are vertical to democracy because they make possible, free discussion and the continuous participation of the people in the government, not only at the time of general elections. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary affirms that

In other words, it is the totality of the peoples; the synthesis or unity of their formal and material lifes of their particular and universal life.

In a bid to provide a fundamental structure on which a free Nigerian political system is to be but the late Nnamdi Azikiwe outlined a political blue print for its realization. Here he states:

Thomas Jefferson The American statesman who is said to be the third president of the United States of America, has an Act for Establishing Freedom (1779) and Notes on the state of Virginia (1787). For instance, Madison argues that religious

____________________________________________________________________________________

1. Hornby, A. S., Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English (Oxford University Press) 229

choices can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. Jefferson like Locke, maintains that the sphere of the magistrate extends only to civil concerns. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. According to Jefferson, it does him no injury for his neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god and that it neither picks his pocket nor breaks his legs.

In the Act, Jefferson argues from religious freedom, but he is also quick to perceive and apply the implications of Locke’s argument for the freedom of speech.

Generally truth is great and will prevail if left to herself. Truth is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition, disarmed for her natural weapons, free argument and debater like Locke, he sees the government officials as not being less fallible, and therefore are no more qualified to force their opinions on others, than are private citizens.

It is also significant that Jefferson declared that the second Treatise, along with Sidney’s "Discourse on Government" provides one general principle liberty and the rights of man in nature and in society approved by fellow citizens of United States.

Jefferson’s advocacy of Locke’s ideas is evident both in the declaration, and in his position paper addressed to the assembly of virginias, written two years earlier, "A summary view of the Rights of British America". In this latter document, Jefferson on Lockean style, describes American as a free people claiming their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate, and asserts that the ancestors of current Americans possessed a right which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice has placed them.

As Locke maintains that property is a natural right, so by extension does Jefferson maintain:

As Locke maintains that the powers exercised by the government are delegated to it by the citizens, so Jefferson refers to legislative bodies to whom the people have delegated the powers of legislation. On the contrary when they are dissolved by the lopping of one or more of their powers of branches, the power reverts to the people.

Like Locke, Jefferson maintains that the initiation of force is incompatible with natural rights, and that cannot give right.

The second paragraph of Declaration of independence is by far the most philosophically significant of all American’s founding documents. And what it consists of, by and large a condensation of American’s documents. Consequently what it consists of, is a condensation of the opening

______________________________________________________________

3Peterson Merrill D., ed. Thomas Jefferson writings. The Library of America.

Internet; www. Googles.com 1984

of "The Virginia Declaration of Rights", written one month earlier by George Mason, which is itself a condensation of nearly all of the major points of he second Treatise.

Just as Locke maintains that in the state of nature all men enjoy a freedom and equality, and Jefferson, having earlier made reference to the laws of nature maintains that all men are created equal. Just as Locke locates the foundation of rights in God, so Jefferson maintains that men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Just as Locke sees the fundamental natural rights as consisting of life, liberty and property, so Jefferson similarly lists rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

While Locke says that rights belong to individual men and thus proceed government, and Jefferson says that to secure these rights, government are instituted among men, driving their just power from the consent of the governed.

Finally, whereas Locke writes of the rights of citizens to revolt against repressive government, Jefferson writes that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government. Just as Locke maintains that need for revolt becomes evident when a long train of abuses, prevarication, and artifices all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, Jefferson likewise maintains that the need for revolt becomes evident when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces design to reduce them under absolute deposition.

Freedom has indeed been a precious thing. It is said to exist only feebly in the ancient world, not all during the Middle Ages, and even today the societies that grant it are in the minority.

According to John Stuart Mill, most attacks upon freedom, traditionally have come from societies that have been dominated by tyrants and by communist societies. These treats, although menacing, are obvious. Some dangers to freedom are said to be more insidious. They come from within democracy itself. One of such dangers is the power that the majority has in a democratic state. While this power is allowed to develop unchecked, it may lead to a form of tyranny as evil or as any kind of depotism, which is a tyranny of the majority over the minority groups. Mill’s classic essay on liberty can be regarded as an attempt to find a method for eliminating this threat.

In his paper on liberty, Mill began pointing out that, what he talks about is civil liberty which emphasizes the limits of the power of society over the individual, rather about freedom of the will. The question of authority versus liberty, like the problem of freedom of the will, is an ancient one. Originally, liberty was thought of in negative terms as the protection that the subjects had against the authority of their rulers.

For Mill, he or she who deems it necessary to defend the society against external and internal enemies, will in preserving the peace overstep his or legitimate authority and become a tyrant. Consequently it is noted that the aim of early libertarians, therefore, was to set limits to the power of the rulers over his or her citizens. Mill further says that this was to be done in two ways: (a) by a doctrine of rights which if infringed by the sovereign, justified rebellion against him or her and (b) by constitutional checks upon him or her certain important matters- such as the declaration of war.

However, with the development of democratic societies, political theorists refused to accept the position that the rulers interest was opposed to that the people. Mill opines that since the rulers were delegated of the ruled, it was not important to limit their power, and that to do so was equivalent to limiting the power of the people themselves. Sequel to the foregoing, Mill points out that a study of the actual development of the institutional within democracy has being imposed upon the powers of the government.

One of the basic elements of democracy is that it allows considerable latitude to its people in behaving as they wish, in developing interests that differ from those of the majority, and in satisfying such interest. This is what Mill summed up under the term "individualism".

Tyranny is said to work in two ways: through pressure upon the government and through the pressure of public opinion.

Public opinion which reflects ancient prejudices, and is nominated by superstition and tradition is said to be notoriously susceptible to error.

According to Mill,

It should be possible in a properly run democratic society for the individual both to have the protection of the law against the prevailing sentiments of society, as well as the act freely in the face of majority opinion where no laws, but only custom exist.

In the course of answering the question on what legitimate powers the society has over the individual, Mill states that:

Mill assumed that the principle would not apply to children. In order to show how the principle would operate in practice, Mill takes as a test as a test case the suppression of opinion and discussion. He gives three reasons why it would be wrong to

___________________________________________________

suppress any opinion. He states, first, it is wrong to suppress on opinion that the majority does not approve of because the suppressed opinion may be true. Second, that a false opinion is frequently corrected through open discussion. Third, that to deny others the right to express their opinions is to assume one’s own infallibility.

Mill’s argument for liberty is an argument for individualism. Mill took the position that there is the greatest difference between, presuming an opinion to be true because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its reputation. He assumed, that it is important that the truth be known and his concept of liberty was conceived as the precondition for depending the full possibilities of human nature.

To hold an opinion according to Mill in a way that may not be harmful, one has to reflect upon all the arguments against it, and by doing so, is forced to think of ways of rebutting them.

A person who fights for democracy

but does not understand what

he/she is fighting for could in other

circumstances be fighting against it. 6

________

6.Ibid., 80

This is what Mill summed up under the term "individualism".

Tyranny is said to work in two ways: through pressure upon the government and through the pressure of public opinion.

Public which reflects ancient prejudices, and is dominated by superstition and tradition is said to be notoriously susceptible to error.

According to Mill,

It should be possible in a properly run democratic society for the individual to have the protection of the law against the prevailing sentiments of society, as well as the act freely in the face of majority opinion where no law, but only custom exist.

In the course of answering the question on what legitimate powers the society has over the individual, Mill states that:

Mill assumed that the principle would not apply to children. In order to show how the principle would operate in practice, Mill takes as a test case the suppression of opinion and discussion. He gives three reasons why it would be wrong to

______________________________________________________________________

4.Richard H. Popkin & Avrum Stroll, Philsophy Made Simple (Double Day, 1978)78

5.Ibid., 79

What is required in a democratic society is an enlightened individual , one who will be mature and responsible because he or she reflects upon the issues that face him or her.

Political theories are extremely complex.

Consequently, Mill states that a political theory do not agree may mainly in error, yet it may contain elements of the truth within it, and if we do not hear such an opinion, we may loose the opportunity to discover even this much truth.

The foregoing is one of the reasons why Mill posits that the opposite opinion should not be suppressed without being heard first, because according to him, even if it is either wholly true or wholly false, that it may contain some elements of the truth.

According to Mill, liberty means civic or social liberty, and not the liberty of will which is so unfortunately opposed to the misnamed doctrine of philosophical necessity. Consequently in his essay on liberty he condemned tyranny. He says:

_____________________________________________________________________

7.Ibid., 80

8. MaryWarnock, (ed) John Stuart Mill Utilitarianism, on Liberty Essay on Bentham

(London: Collins Clear - Type press, 1996) 126.

It is obvious Mill is of the opinion that people should be given the opportunity to air their view on matters concerning the politics of the society. He stated in his essay on liberty that imposition of opinion on others is as a result of want of power.

Although, Mill agrees that democracy is the best form of government, he set forth in his essay on liberty certain dangers inherent in the democratic form of government. Principally, he warned that the will of the people is most often the will of the majority to press the minority. Mill was particularly concerned to preserve liberty by setting limits to the actions of government.

Mill’s concept of liberty has particular relevance in the twentieth century.

Jose Maria Rosales argues that liberalism provides democracy with the experience of civil reformism, without which, democracy lose any argumentative or practical tie to a coherent design of policy which tends to provide the resources for the realization of democratic citizenship. Liberalism for him rests on an argumentative reconstruction of the function. It performs before the rise of a world economic order and more specifically, in the creation of welfare states after the second World War. Rosales defines liberalism to be a reformist political programme, stating that it is an emancipating political project by virtue of its struggle for an egalitarian and universalistic extension of citizenship rights. This is a formulation of the modern idea of citizenship, conceived of as a universalizable contract of rights. At the same time. Rosales explains that liberalism embraces a socio-economic emancipation, in project that endeavours to provide the condition within the institutional framework modern societies, for the accomplishment of citizenship rights.

The origin of liberalism in the seventeenth century tells the story of the struggle of recognition of religious tolerance. This easily form of pluralism provided the antecedent for the constructional recognition of civil rights, interpreted in terms of universal description. A further step of constitution building in liberal politics was taken when the universal principles of equality and liberty assumed the stating of fundamental rights. This happened under the form of a constitutional programme aimed at the improvement of the civil condition.

Liberalism as a revolution of rights not only meant the conquest of civil rights by society, but also their extension by constitutional means. Which ever the case, the emancipated and the egalitarian universalist, gave form to the original liberalism.

Liberalism owes as much to its antecedents, as to its linkage with the republican tradition of communal self-government, and with the socialist tradition in support for an egalitarian model of society. Indeed, it is on the basis of this double tie that the political history of liberalism belongs to the history of modern democracy a representative democracy.

Liberalism has been seen as an ideology on political freedom in both respect.

It is an emancipatory political

project by virtue of its struggle

for an egalitarian and universalist

extension of citizenship rights.9

This is a formulation of the modern idea of citizenship, conceived of as a universalizable contract of rights. An at the same time liberalism embraces a soci-economonic emancipatory project that endeavors to provide the condition, within the constitutional frame of modern societies, for the accomplishment of citizenship rights.

_______________________________________________________________________________

9.Jose Maria Rosales, Liberalism Civil Reformism and Democracy. (Internet: www. Googles.com) 2

Citizenship denotes the membership statues of individuals and social groups belonging to a political community, whereas membership embodies the establishment of a bilateral relation between the individual and the community or the state. It is on this note that Rosales established his concept on liberal citizenship, which he viewed as a universalible contract of rights. In his view, citizenship empowers individual to entering the community’s political life. It is an egalitarian empowerment to the extent that the status acknowledges in every citizen is an equal civil capacity to the act in politics.

Citizenship according to Rosales can be assumed by birth or by contract. The former founds membership on blood ties while the latter refers it to a contractual relation.

Liberalism does not legitimate itself by its reformist and egalitarian appeal. It depends rather on the political reasonability of its project to be instituted. Nevertheless, liberalism is more than an intellectual tradition. It is made of understanding and practicing politics.

Thomas Hobbes is of the opinion that sovereignty should be in the hands of one person, a king to be precise. In this respect he can be said to be a monarchist. His reasons for advocating monarchy over forms of government, such as oligarchy, democracy are; firstly if the sovereignty consist of a group then this group might have conflicts within itself. Consequently the power of enforcement would be divided and instead of a peaceful society, conflict would again break out. On the other hand a monarchy cannot be divided against himself. Secondly he emphasized that a single ruler has more secrecy of counsel as against large groups which he feels will invariably leak important information to the people , consequently causing dissension among them. He finally supported his view on monarchy, saying that monarchy decisions are constant as against the inconstancy that abounds in group governance. Citing instance he stasted that absence or presence of a few people in governance can alter the decision that government take in framing laws.

He also said that such can happen with a monarch. Furthermore there is no reason to believe that the monarch will work for his own good at the expense of the public welfare. As Hobbses rightly puts it, the king is only as rich as country.

Although the power of the monarch is to be absolute, Hobbes wishes to grant the subject certain liberties. These liberties he defines as those things the subjects may refuse to do even though commended by the sovereignty.

Since the subject have entered into the contract to preserve and protect his life, he is entitled to refuse to obey the sovereign, and in doing so, the sovereign places his life in danger. For instance the Monarch’s command to the subject to kill, wound or maim himself or not to resist those who assault him can be justly disregarded by the subject. Stated that the subject is not bound to testify against himself in a criminal action.

Liberty does not include thes defence of any man against the sovereign. Thus rebellion is always unwarranted, according to Hobbes. Similarly in Hobbes view protection of a criminal from the officers of the law is likewise unjust. For him, in as much as a subject is entitled to refuse to obey the sovereign he cannot on any ground rebel against the monarch.

The sovereign has an absolute right to control all opinions, further he is to make all civil laws and also to adjudicate disagreement involving the law.

Hobbes in attempting to avoid the evil effects of internecine conflict was willing to submit to evils of tyranny and to surrender liberty in return for security.

Hobbes opined that the only safe way of securing the stability of the state, taken for granted the self seeking nature of mankind, was that all should agree to transfer the supreme power, indivisible an inalienable to a sovereign and should renounce once and for all the rights to take that power away from him or interface in any way with the exercise of it.

Hobbes unlike Locke, thinks that the state is necessary to make man moral, even in the state of nature.

In defending who a free man is, Hobbes states thus:

Like Locke, Hobbes bases the obligation to obey, the state on the supposed fact that the staste was in the first place a voluntary institution, formed by a covenant of everyman. He feels that the wise sacrifices of natural right made the citizen are only justifiable it they were in the first place voluntary.

For Hobbes, there could be a right to private property, only after the legal order has been set up.

The "Leviathan" can be said to be primarily a book on social and political philosophy of Hobbes. Unlike Locke, Hobbes defines right in a clear term, thus:

The word right in the bare

state of nature is man’s

freedom to do what he would,

and against whom he thought

fit, and to possess, use and

enjoy all that he would, or

could get.11

___________________________________________________

10.Maurice Cranston & Richard (e.d) Hobbes and Rousseau

(New York: Anchor Books, 1972) 24

11.Samuel Enoch Stumpf Philosophy: History and Problems 273

Hobbes defines natural law as a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, expressing what to do and what not to do. The first law of nature according to him is that every man ought to seek peace and follow it. The second law of nature states that man should be willing, when others are so too, which according to him is denied from the first law of nature:

In social contract Hobbes states that, there are two distinct outstanding facts. First, the parties to the contract and individuals who promise each other to hand over their rights to govern themselves to the sovereign; consequently it is not a contract between the sovereign and the citizens. The sovereign has absolute power to govern and he is in a way subject to the citizens. Secondly Hobbes clearly states that the sovereign can be either this man or this assembly of men; consequently his view of sovereignty was not identified with any particular form of government. It may be that Hobbes had preference for a single ruler with absolute power, but he recognized the possible compatibility of his theory of sovereignty with democracy. But whatever form the sovereign would take, it is clear that Hobbes saw the transfer of the right to rule

_____________________________________________________

12. Matthew I. Nwoko CMF, Basic World Political Theories

(Ibadan: Claverianum Press, 1998) 72

from the people to the sovereign as absolute and irrevocable.

Having shown that in the state of nature anarchy is the logical consequence of independent individual judgment, he concluded that the only way to overcome such anarchy is to make a single body out of the several bodies of the citizens. The picture one gets in the state of nature is men moving against each others bodies in motion, or the anarchic condition Hobbes called "the war of all against all." (Bellum omnia contra omnes)

John Locke created what would become the philosophical source for the founding principles of the United States of America. In considering the influence of Locke’s thought on the founding fathers, I will focus my attention on the ideas of George Mason and Thomas Jefferson as the intellectual sources of the Declaration of independence, and James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams as among the creators and defenders of the ideas underlying the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

As the author of the document that states the fundamental values for the attainment of which the United States of America created, Thomas Jefferson is the most fundamental source of American Political Ideology. It is therefore significant that Jefferson considered Locke along with Bacon and Newton to be one of the three greatest men that have ever lived.

It is an established fact that if not for the ideas of John Locke who is the intellectual founding father of the United States of America, there would have being neither a revolution nor a revolutionary ideology of political freedom. Following the political and economic freedom which has existed in the past few centuries, as well as for the art, and material prosperity that freedom has made possible. It is pertinent to state that America and the world at large should owe its gratitude to John Locke.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights written by George Mason is itself a condensation of nearly all of the major points of the second treatise. Consequently it is fundamental to note that this Declaration is eloquent and concise in its statement to Locke’s ideas:

This can only be the will and determination of the majority.

Just as Locke maintains that in the state of nature all men enjoy freedom and equality, and Mason maintains that all men are by nature equally free and independent.

Sequel to Locke’s ideology on the right to revolt, Mason and Jefferson are endeared to it and as such are in support of that indirectly. According to Mason, wherever any government shall be found indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it. Jefferson on another note, writes that wherever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends of government, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government.

After the Declaration of independence, America’s most important founding document is the constitution. This constitution provides a bridge between the principles of political philosophy and

___________________________________________________

the principle of law which influence also pervades, consequently through Locke’s influence pervades it less directly.

Developing Locke’s arguments in general and his argument for private property in particular, James Madison, the primary architect of he construction, wrote that the major purpose of government is the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property. On another note, Locke defined in its extended sense, saying that men, have property as well as goods. Madison on the other hand wrote that government is instituted to protect property of every sort.

According to Water Berns, Locke was in fact the first to delineate the elements of powers, probably the most format of constitutional forms. It is not surprising to note that the system of checks and balances and the separation of powers written into the constitution were ultimately designed, according to John Adams, to achieve the Lockean goal of protecting the life, liberty and property of citizens.

Reducing the tenure in office by means of frequent elections was necessary, according to James Mason, because all power was originally lodged in, and consequently is derived from the people, and as such gives room for people’s opinion and chances to be part of governance, thus:

_________________________________

2.Nigel Warburton, Philosophy: The Basics

(Oxford 1998) 77

Jefferson, according to Stow persons propounded what was as a result of Locke’s influence a standing rule in American’s constitution.

In the 2nd Treatise of Government, Locke tried to show that men can live amicably together without submitting to a ruler who has absolute authority.

There are three main criticisms. I will establish in the cause of this paper. The first one is against the doctrine of right, which is based on the idea of natural rights, i.e. rights that men enjoyed in the state of nature before the emergence of organized societies such a claim in comprehensible since it is difficult to know how rights could be.

It is obvious that Locke’s liberalism is the foundation of American politics , its influence has developed to what we call Democracy. This concept of government has become the system of government practiced in most developed and developing countries, so far so good.

Nigeria as a case study, has been into Democracy since 1999. Unlike other types of government practiced in Nigeria, the ruled fact liberated in governance. People

__________________________________________________________________

3.Stow persons, American Minds: A History of Ideas.

(Henry Holt and Company, 1940) 78.

feel free in the opinion on matters affecting them and the society. Unlike the military regime where one cannot question the president, democracy gives room for people’s opinion. People feel free to question the government without fear.

There have been too many developments and improvement recorded since the inception of democracy in Nigeria, Abia state to be precise.

This democratic administration has encouraged privatization, such as privatization of means of communication:

All said and done, Locke’s liberalism has made a lot of influence not just in America but also in Europe and in Africa politics.

_____________________________

4.Chidi Irolewe (ed) All Time Magazine Vol. 2 No. 9

5.Ibid 24 I(Nigeria: 2002) 12

6. Dan Agbese, (ed) Newswatch Magazine (Nigeria: Nov. 26, 2001) 61

Exist before there existed a government and a system of laws to grant them and to uphold them. Examination of the term shows that it does not have this kind of descriptive meaning. It makes a prescriptive claim that men ought to have these rights. This must cast some doubt in the validity of Locke’s argument, which seems to be based on a belief that in a state of nature, men do have these rights on some literal, descriptive sense. Even if we agree with Locke’s claim and accept that these are rights that men ought to have, there are still difficulties to be overcome such as the rights we feel men ought to have been compatible with the notion of "The public good".

Locke held that the purpose of governance is to preserve certain rights and at the same time work for the public good. But there may be cases where we cannot achieve both ends if we are the government. Consider the case of a man who shouts fire in the crowded theatre, knowing fully well that there is no fire. People may stampede in an effort to get out of the theatre. Some will be injured, while others may end up dead. If we accept the doctrine that a man has the right to free speech, we cannot penalize this man for speaking freely, which is contrary to public good. Such a man is a menace to the general public. Consequently he has the absolute right to free speech.

Some democratic philosophers who have puzzled about this question have, on the whole, been willing to abandon that men cannot have absolute freedom against the state.

Rights in this view are those areas that can be infringed only with majority consent when the public welfare is genuinely at stake. It does not condone tyranny, for:

In any case freedom cannot be absolute. Complete absence of control is not freedom but license.

The second criticism is the notion of majority rule. In raising the question, who should rule? Locke unlike Plato and Hobbes was on the side of the people as opposed to the few. This doctrine has a destructive effect. The few traditionally have been the wealthy and the priviledged and in ruling they have worked for their own interest or for the interest of a special class, against the interest of the majority. But what Locke never realized was that the majority itself can become a tyranny; it can prove to be a depotism as fierce as any monarch in submerging the minority. Therefore,

It is also a government in which minority rights must be equally protected.

The third criticism is on the rights to private property. It is clear that when Locke wrote the two treatise of civil government, he was unworldly, but a man of property, greatly interested in self guarding established property institutions.

Sequel to the foregoing, it is obvious that Locke’s

_____________________________________________________

7Richard H. Popkin & Avrum Strolls, Philosophy Made Simple (Double day; New York 1993) 75

ideology on right to private property was established out of bias and as a means of protecting his acquired wealth and property. His interests in this not surprising when one realizes that he was, already in the 1670’s, a fairly wealthy man with substantial investment in such things as the raw silk trade, the Royal Africa Company and the Bahama Adventures.

____________________________________________

9Nigel Warburton Philosophy: The Classics

(London: Routledge, 2000) 98

Locke’s political philosophy has been extremely influential, and his ideas have caused both revolutions and evolutions in politics.

It is accurate to say that John Locke was the theoretical architect of democracy as it exists in his famous second Treatise of civil government were influential in forming the political philosophy of the founders of the American and French republics.

Like Hobbes, Locke Iived in a period of great social unrest. But unlike Hobbes, he did not allow such events to soil his outlook on human nature. As to the proper function of government, he is diametrically opposed to Hobbes.

Locke argues, since the monarch by seeking absolute domination over the citizenry has established a state of war with them.

According to Locke, there are certain areas of human conduct that are humane from government interference. Locke calls these "rights". This doctrine is the direct ancestors of the famous Bill of rights in the American constitution.

The main right above all emphasized is right to own private property. According to him, no government can justly take away a person’s private property. This is because private property is to a great extent, the fruit of a person’s own labour..

In order to safeguard the people against the concentration of power, Locke envisaged a government divided into three branches, each of which would function a check upon the other. Executive, legislative and the federative. The federative consist in carrying on negotiations with foreign powers. Locke greatly feared the position on the contrary of authority in the executive. Consequently his theory sharply restricts its powers.

Locke bases the obligation to obey the state on the supposed fact that the state was in the first place a voluntary institution formed by a movement of every man with every man.

One could classify Locke’s political philosophy as a form of modern liberalism. As a social contract theorist he emphasizes the will of the people as the determination factor of the reality of the state.

Locke’s second treatise of civil government was directed against the principle of Sir Robert Filmer, whose books asserts the divine authority of kings and denying any rights of resistance.

Summarily, liberalism can be said to be an attitude of action opposing established forms of authority considered restrictive of individual freedom and social progress. Liberalism and democracy are now usually though to have common arms, but in the past, many liberals considered democracy precious because it encouraged mass participation in politics. The fundamental principle of democracy is clearly stated in Locke’s political ideology, though his vindication of it was not so much due to an explicit desire to champion the democratic idea as to a plain. Attempt to understand what had happened in 1988.

Locke’s general political theory became a major basis for the justification of democratic government, even if he also produced an argument for slavery, of a rather feeble kind. He saw slaves as people who had been wrongfully at war, so that those who captured them had a right to keep them in captivity.

Although Locke does disgrace with Thomas Hobbes in his political ideology; Locke like Hobbes bases the obligation to obey the state on the supposed fact that the state was in the first place a voluntary institution, formed by a covenant of everyman with every man.

Locke was not so much interested in Filmer but rather was using him as a stalking horse to attack Thomas Hobbes, the author of Leviathan. Locke saw his job as one which must defend government as an institution.

All said and done, John Locke was the intellectual founding father of United States of America, without whose ideas there would have been neither a revolution nor a revolutionary ideology of political freedom. Consequently, it is fundamental that America, and the world at large should express their profound gratitude over such political ideology.

John Locke’s philosophy of liberalism will be more pertinent today in our world in which government seem to have lost the meaning of freedom, equality and opportunity in the meaning of freedom, equality and opportunity in the civil society, which are the subject matter in liberalism.

1. (Baffalo: Prometheus,) 1986

2. John Locke, Second Treatise of Government

(London: Cambridge University Press, 1960).

1. Enrique Dussel, Philosophy of Liberation.

Maryknoll, New York, 10545 .

2. Marshall John, John Locke Resistance,

Religion and Responsibility

(Cambridge, 1994).

3. Popkin H. Richard, Philosophy Made Simple

Doubleday Publication, N.Y, 1993.

4. Smith T.V. & Marjorie, From Descartes to Kant

(University of Chicago Press,) 1942.

1. Aja Akpuru Aja, Fundamental of Modern Political Economic Relations… Changing With Times. (Owerri: Data Globe, 1998) 6

2. Azikiwe N, Political Blue Print of Nigeria (N.J: Prentice Hall, 1965) 155.

3. Catholic Bishops OWEP,

Ensuring Free And Fair lection In Nigeria

(Owerri, 30th Jan - 1st Feb, 2002). Art 2

7. Jose Maria Rosales, Liberalism, Civil Re-formism And Democracy

(Internet: www.google.com <http://www.google.com>) 2

8. Mary Warnock, (ed) John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism On Liberty, Essay on Benthan.

(London: Colins Clear- Types Press, 1996) 126

9. Matthew I. Nwoko, CMF Basic World Political Theories

(Ibadan: Claverarum Press, 1998)72

10. Nigel Warburton, American Minds: Ahistory Of Ideas

Henry Holt And Company.

11. Odey Okwoeze John, Christians, politics And The Nigerian Dilemma

(Snaap Press Ltd., Enugu), 1999.

12. Peterson Marill D. (ed) Thomas Jefferson Writings,

(The Library of America.)

13. Samuel Enoch Stumpf Philosophy: History And Problems p.273

I Dr. Prince David Nyong certify that the study presented in this Research paper was undertaken by Mr. Eke Godwin Chukwuemeka, under my supervision. And it is accepted for the Award of the Bachelors of Arts (B.A. HONS) in philosophy at St. Joseph Major Seminary, Ikot Ekpene. An Affiliate Institute of the Pontifical Urban University, Rome, and Federal University of Uyo, Nigeria.

Signature ………………………

Date ……………………………

My Dearly Beloved Dad

Asp Leonard Eke

AND

My caring and loving Mum

Mrs. Elizabeth Eke

Gratitude comes from the heart and mind that have it as an attitude. One should be grateful since in the final analysis no one does a thing alone. "Gigni del nihilo, nihilum, nil posse reverti"- from nothing, nothing comes, into nothing, nothing goes left alone; I am nothing and nothing would have come out of me, if not for those I owe gratitude.

I wish to express my profound gratitude, first and foremost to God who knit me together and in whom I continually live, move and have my being. My special tribute goes to my local ordinary, Rt. Rev. Dr. A. Ilonu, who gave me the opportunity to study in the major seminary. I thank my Rector, REV. FR. DR. Donatus Udoete and Academic Dean of Philosophy, Rev. Fr. Dr. S.I. Nnoruka. I remain grateful to all the staff and formators of St. Joseph Major Seminary, Ikot Ekpene.

My special thanks go to my moderator Dr. Prince David Nyong, who I am indebted, to his ingenuity and critical acumen in directing this project.

How sharper than a serpent’s tooth says Shakespeare, "it is to have a thankless child". In a very unique way, my profound gratitude goes to my Dearly Beloved Parents- ASP & Mrs. Leonard Eke, whose commitment, dedication and daily sweat most sustain me in my training in the seminary. To you my brothers Okechukwu (Johannesburg), Benjamin, Matthew, JohnBosco and Boniface, I cannot thank you enough, you are God’s special gift to me.

My heartfelt gratitude goes to my aunt Rev. Sr. Augustina Eke, for her encouragement and assistance.

To Mr. Francis Eke, Mr. Vitalis Iwu and my cousins and other relations, Miss Catherine Eke, my inlaw Mr. luke, Assumpta, Olunma, and C.C Nwachukwu, I remain grateful to you all for your advice and assistance.

I am sincerely indebted to my Affiliate Universities - Pontiì¥Á "A

"A


Friends they say, bring out the best in each other, I appreciate very greatly the care and generousity of my friends: Cletus Lumenzeh, Theophilus Nwosu and Uche for their assistance.

I remain ever grateful to Patience Chizoba Nwachukwu for what she is to me.

I won’t forget to send my regard to my family friends, Mr. Ernest Nwachukwu and family, Mr. Justin Okafor and family and Mr. George Ihejirika and family, for their pieces of advice and assistance. To you REV. FR. Patrick Odirachukwuma Orji, my mentor and boss, I can’t thank you enough for your assistance and advice; you have being a model for me; may God continue to bless you and your family.

Regrettably, I can only mention a few names due to want of space. To all those who deserve my thanks appreciation, I thank you all, May God bless you.

I wish to thank in a special way Prof. Aja, Akpuru Aja whose kindness and friendly relation to my family is highly appreciated, I pray for God’s blessings on his family.

To our Action Governor, Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu (MON) Agu n’eche mba, I appreciate his fraternal relation to the family of ASP Leonard Eke (camp commandant Government House). I ask God to continue guiding him in his transparent governance in Abia State.

June 2003

John Locke was born in Wrington in somerset country of Britain. Locke’s mother Agnes Keene died while he was still in infancy. His father was a "country lawyer" and a captain in the parliamentary Army during the civil war; he died while John was still young.

John Locke was elected to a life of studentship at Christ church, oxford. Although he completed a philosophical education at oxford, John Locke declined the offer of a permanent academic position in order to avoid committing himself to a religious order.

Having also studied medicine, he served for so many years as private physician and secretary to Anthony Ashley Cooper, the first Earl of shafter bury and one of the lord proprietors of Carolina colonies. Locke’s involvement with this controversial political figure led him to a period of self-imposed exile in Holland during the 1680s, but after the glorious revolution of 1688 he held several minor governmental offices.

Locke was a friend of Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle. He was also an early member of the Royal society. He studied and wrote on philosophical, scientific, and political matters throughout his life, in voluminous correspondence and ample journals, but the public work for which he is best known were published in a single, sudden burst.

Upon his return to England, in 1689, Locke adopted a life style that allowed him to compile his works and make them ready for the press. Thus, we see in 1690, the publication of Locke’s two principle works: Essay concerning human understanding and two Treatises of Government, Observation on Silver Monly and further consideration on raising, the value of money (1690s), Essay concerning toleration (1689) some thoughts concerning education (1695). The reasonableness of Christianity (1698) and commentary on letters of St. Paul which were published after his death. On October 28th 1704, Locke died as a Lady Marshal was reading the psalms to him at the age of 72. He was buried in the church yard of high laver. He did not marry till death.

The topic dates back to the beginning of the Enlightenment , the age of Reason, a time of intellectual awakening. The Enlightenment began when the Dark Ages ended. A time when man stepping out of his shackles, began to use his rational facilities, questioned almost every part of his existential life, and pulled himself out of the Medieval pits of tyranny and usurpation. Sequel to the foregoing, it is from this period that liberalism emerged.

The ideology called "Liberalism" is a political philosophy of John Locke, that emphasizes freedom, equality and opportunity of individuals in the civil society. In the "Two Treatises of Government" Locke not only vindicates the lawfulness of resistance, in the language of rights and natural rights, but goes on to locate the authority to resist with the body of the people even with any single man, if deprived of their right.

Liberalism is said to have undergone a significant change of emphasis at the inception of modernity. The fact that John Locke is the theoretical architect of liberalism as it exist in the western world today is not an over statement. His works and thoughts as expressed in his famous "second Treatise on Government" is an eloquent testimony to this fact.

The fact that I am endeared to the concept of liberalism evoked and initiated my choice of the topic: Liberalism in Lockean Philosophy: (A Critical Exposition).

This work is set to give insight to the topic, it brings to bare how genuine Democracy and the proper functioning of Natural Law can bring a civil society. Consequently, this work will be an exposition and a critical evaluation.

In chapter one, the notion of liberalism is treated while taking cognizance of its meaning and its historical survey. Chapter two dwells on the exposition of Lockean Liberalism. Chapter three delves into a survey of other philosophers view points in comparison with Lockean Liberalism.

In the final analysis, chapter four proffers a critique, the influence of Lockean Liberalism and conclusion.