Locke the Ironies of Philosophy

Locke

The ironies of philosophy and politics -- John Locke's definition of tyranny and its applicable to the modern British Commonwealth nation of Zimbabwe

The history of colonialism and the history of political philosophy have given rise to many ironies. One early manifestation of the irony was when the British 17th century philosopher John Locke's Second Treatise on Government gave the philosophical justification for the American Founding Fathers to resist the English government's domination over the North American colonies. John Locke's statement that the protection of the citizen's life, liberty, and preservation of property was the ultimate aim of government, not the monarchy's self-interested personal self-preservation was echoed in the language of "The Declaration of Independence" in 1776.

A tyrant thus is a sovereign who attempts to merely protect and enshrine his own power and enrich himself. A tyrant does not protect the citizens as is agreed upon by the implied social contract of government. In this implied social contract, there is a sacrifice of some of the liberties of the natural state of humans in nature for the personal protection provided by sovereignty. The early colonists used the British Locke's language to contemn the British King George III's colonial rule. Today, the modern ruler of the Commonwealth British territory in Africa, the leader Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe also fits this definition of tyranny even more perfectly than the British King ever did, inflicting gross abuses upon his citizenry merely to keep himself in luxury and power. This is true even though so-called President Mugabe came to power in the name of freedom and anti-colonialism, promising to help throw off the last vestiges of British rule.

Today, in the British press and media Mugabe is described as "one of the grand old men of African politics," harkening back to the heady days of early anti-colonialism in Africa, where merely opposing British colonialism and the British nation was enough to ensure an African leader's support, regardless of the leader's own behavior towards the African people or his ideology, so long as he was anti-British. When Robert Mugabe came to power in 1980 in his native Zimbabwe, he glibly talked of peace and co-operation after decades of white colonial rule and the subsequent bitter civil war between Zimbabwean factions. Taking the helm of the newly renamed nation of Zimbabwe he was quickly elevated to the ranks of international statesman. He justified his power by pointing the immediate wave of popular support manifested by ordinary citizens of the nation. He made early political promises of reconciliation and democracy. But these promises were quickly overtaken by his authoritarian suppression, first of his allies, and then of the opposition parties. (BBC News, 2000)

Almost immediately, Mugabe attacked members of the coalition government that the people had invested with their support and trust. Both forces had also fought the British government, including the Zapu faction lead by Joshua Nkomo, but Mugabe stated that "the discovery of a large arms cache at Zapu-owned houses" necessitated Mr. Nkomo's dismissal from government. (BBC News, 2000) Whether the allegations were true or not, Mugabe has ruled as an authoritarian leader ever since.

After consolidating his power, in a non-coalition and thus non-elected government that did not have the people's support (given that their support had been given to a coalition, not to Mugabe alone) Mugabe began to use his position for personal enrichment, although often cloaked under the rhetoric of anti-colonialism. For instance, Mugabe insisted upon committing the Zimbabwe armed forces to intervening in the Congolese civil war, despite the state of the Zimbabwe economic infrastructure. This intervention, defended as an effort of providing anti-colonialist support to a fellow African nation, resulted in "government officials...lining their pockets from Congo's rich mineral reserves while Zimbabwe's own economy plummets out of control." (BBC News, 2000)

According to Locke, the definition of a tyrant vs. A sovereign is that a tyranny does not uphold the aim of a legitimate civil government is to preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its citizens. Through using government to enrich himself, Mugabe threatened both the lives as well as the economic livelihoods of his nation. A sovereign while a sovereign has the right to prosecute and punish those of its citizens who violate the rights of others and to pursue the public good even where this may conflict with the rights of individuals, the only good upheld for Zimbabwe in the intervention in the Congo was the enrichment of Mugabe's supporters, not the enrichment of the lives or the safety of the people.

The ruling tyrant conflates the public good with his own, private good, allows excesses for those who act in his self-interest. A sovereign, in contrast, legitimately justifies his (or her power) by providing something unavailable in the state of nature, such as giving impartial judges to determine the severity of the crime, and working to set punishments proportionate to crimes, for the good of the larger citizen body. In contrast, the tyrant uses fear and judicial and political power to keep the people in a state of illegitimate slavery and a state of fear.

Illegitimate slavery is the state in which someone possesses absolute power over someone else without just cause. Locke holds that it is this illegitimate state of slavery that absolute monarchs wish to impose upon their subjects. Mugabe has wielded his government-enabled powers in a way that hurts rather than helps the populace and stifles their freedom, and endangers rather than preserves their safety. For example, when local journalists who have tried to investigate some of the allegations against the government of Mugabe and his family, and the invasion of the Congo, the journalists have been intimidated and in some cases tortured. In Zimbabwe, personal 'crimes' such as unnatural sex acts with no complaining injured part have still been defined as illegal, some possessing, in the case of homosexuality, a penalty of up to ten years in prison. (BBC News, 200)

Of course, some might say that the good done by Mugabe done for his nation in liberating it from colonialism relieves it of some of the 'bad' it has done for the nation. Some might suggest that when condemning the intimidation of journalists and so called sexual deviants, one is merely imposing modern and Western standards upon the ruler. One might even say that Mugabe's invasion in Congo politics was legitimate, as all colonial nations have an interest in their own neighbor's development. But it should be noted in response that John Locke's argument in the Second Treatise regarding tyranny, are more culturally and nationally pluralistic than one might allow. For instance, Locke does allow for the legitimate existence of a king as a sovereign, not a tyrant. The majority can confer the rule of the community on a king, as well as representative assembly. But in the case of Mugabe, the legitimacy was conferred upon a coalition government, which Mugabe overthrew, not upon Mugabe alone.

Thus although legitimacy may have been true when Mugabe first came to power, "taking power on a wave of popular support," such "early political promises of reconciliation and democracy were later overtaken by a strong authoritarian streak and a deep distrust of opposition," that created a self-interested tyranny, rather than a monarch governing with the interests of the nations at hand. (BBC News, 2000) for a leader to be legitimate, according to Locke, even a kingly ruler must perform the legitimate function of government and uphold the interests of the state and the people. The intervention in the Congo enriched Mugabe and his supporters, and did nothing to preserve the safety of the people, nation or region. The journalists and politicians attacked by the government, as well as the common people, had acted in ways injurious to Mugabe, not to the state, unless one equates the tyrant's self-interests and enrichment with the people's interests.