..out of the dark

To some extent it does not. Just as politicians generally will always be about as reliable as a lead lifebelts, theoretical political science is wrought with unassailable core symposiums (without the capital 'S') that routinely fail to explain anything at all.

Still, it cannot be denied that having principles and ideals have some kind of appeal to small- minded narcissists, naive idealists and realists alike. Meaning that in certain circumstances, it is certainly of interest to describe how these theories and ideologies change.

For instance, I could make one extreme simplification and suggest that there are two kinds of political theory. That which is crafted to justify certain acts because they are bound to happen, and what would be designed as a the ways in which social change should happen. Obviously, most theories fall into both categories at once, and we need to fold space further.


When John Locke published his Two Treatises on Government anonymously in 1689, the year after the "Glorious Revolution", the first few sentences read:

Reader,

Thou hast here the Beginning and End of a Discourse concerning Government; what Fate has otherwise disposed of the Papers that should have filled up the middle, and were more than all the rest, 'tis not worth while to tell thee. These, which remain, I hope are sufficient to establish the Throne of our Great Restorer, Our present King William; to make good his Title, in the Consent of the People, which being the only one of all lawful Governments, he has more fully and clearly than any Prince in Christendom: And to justifie to the World, the People of England, whose love of their Just and Natural Rights, with their Resolution to preserve them, saved the Nation when it was on the very brink of Slavery and Ruine. If these Papers have that evidence, I flatter my self is to be found in them, there will be no great miss of those which are lost, and my Reader may be satisfied without them. For I imagine I shall have neither the time, nor inclination to repeat my Pains, and fill up the wanting part of my Answer, by tracing Sir Robert again, through all the Windings and Obscurities which are to be met with in the several Branches of his wonderful System. The King, and Body of the Nation, have since so thoroughly confuted his Hypothesis, that, I suppose, no Body hereafter will have either the Confidence to appear against our Common Safety, and be again an Advocate for Slavery; or the Weakness to be deceived with Contradictions dressed up in a Popular Stile, and well turned Periods. For if any one will be at the Pains himself, in those Parts which are here untouched, to strip Sir Robert's Discourses of the Flourish of doubtful Expressions, and endeavour to reduce his Words to direct, positive, intelligible Propositions, and then compare them one with another, he will quickly be satisfied there was never so much glib Nonsence put together in well sounding English.(...)

Sir Robert is Sir Robert Filmer, who supported the rule of kings against the parliamentarists till his death in 1653. Sir Robert explains in his theories how God gave the earth to Adam, for him to rule, which then passed on to Noah, and through some intermediary mysteriousness the line ended up in the great bloodlines in Europe, through which the King derived his authority from God. These theories were published as the conflict between the Commons and the King began to become less than friendly in about 1680. And Locke makes his views plain about how justified the revolution was that disposed of this nonsense once and for all.

Nevertheless, these were not safe opinions to have at the time, especially as Locke was said to have worked with the rebels, and no doubt had powerful enemies after the revolution. But publishing a justification for the ousting of James the First in 1689, rather than a few years later when he was still on the throne, would undoubtedly be less problematic also in other practical respects. And as the preface explains, it is a defense for what came to pass in 1688, and a complete trashing of the principle of divine rule (and I would agree with Locke, even without the "larger" parts of the essay intact).


Today Locke isn't considered radical or revolutionary, though. And more like the father of the modern state, capitalism and the constitution. As a moral philosopher, he enumerates human rights, the equality of man, the curse of Kings, and does so with such eloquence that he can be quoted out of context to great ovations at almost any political gathering even today, four hundred years later.

But in the process from theory about how successful government would work, and to successfully overthrowing the government with outside help from the Dutch to serve as the figurehead - there's some distance from one to the other. And I wonder - is it possible to ask whether we really know if any of Locke's theories were - at the time - even as dominating for political theory they've been since - simply completily off the wall compared to what was possible to do at the time?

Or is it the case that the text and the thoughts, as had been brooding for a long, long time, finally expressed itself in the revolution and this text, where Locke implies more than one person assisted in providing ideas for. That it was simply the product of the times?

Obviously, both has some amount of truth to them.


Which, I theorize, is the requirement of any good political theory.