Locke introduces the concept of separation of powers, an idea very familiar to us as contemporary readers, in chapter 12 and 13. In his time, this idea wasn’t as widely accepted because absolute monarchy was the norm. The monarchs in these societies would often abuse their power because the ‘legislative’ and ‘executive’ branches were combined in this type of commonwealth so it would be easy for the monarch to push their own agenda. Locke believes it is an obligation that these two branches of government, and their respective powers, to be separate in order to avoid the ruler exempting himself from the very law he poses. He writes: “And because it may be too great a temptation to human frailty… for the same persons who have the power of making laws to have also in their hands the power to execute them, whereby they may exempt themselves from the obedience of the laws they make, and suit the law… to their own private advantage” (335). In theory, this abuse of power should be avoided by the separation of powers and the use of checks in balances. We see a resounding similarities between this framework and the government that currently exists in the United States- where Congress is in charge of making the laws and the president is in charge of enforcing them.
In the past few chapters, Locke maps out the legislative branch and all of the duties it’s responsible for. For him, this is the single most important aspect of the government. It has authority over making laws that are geared towards bettering the society- the aim is to always be working towards the public good. Locke believes that this is not a job that is ongoing, though. He says: “But because those laws which are constantly being executed, and whose force is always to continue, may be made in a little time, therefore there is no need that the legislative should be always in being, not having always work to do” (335).
On paper, this idea seems to still be the case (in the US) - the legislative branch certainly has the more power than the other two branches of our government with the ability to do the following: declare war, override vetoes, impeach the president, and reject supreme court nominees just to name a few.
Do we still think the American government executes the separation of powers in the same way Locke originally posed? How has the role of the ruler (executive power) evolved, perhaps negatively according to Locke, within the American system? In what ways have presidents in the past been able to expand their executive power and how has the importance from the legislative power to the executive power in many ways? How would Locke react to the current political state of the country?
Locke views temporality of power as a check on corruption, or a way to ensure that lawmakers do not abuse the free time that comes due to laws being "made in a little time" as you've mentioned (335). The solution, he claims, to the likelihood of human frailty to allow lawmakers to exempt themselves from obedience, is to ensure that the legislative body would only convene from an eclectic group of people over the short time frame that lawmaking requires, before assimilating again into the social fabric of the community. This contrasts the degree of permanence he attributes to the executive power. Laws "have a constant and lasting force," and they are in need of a perpetual execution (336). Locke seems to trust that a permanent or long-lasting power in the executive branch does not breed corruption, even though it does in the legislative branch. In fact, he argues that the executive branch must also command the federative power of the commonwealth, for both of these powers "require the force of society for their exercise" and need to be executed over a continuum of time (337). Is Locke then suggesting that the separation of powers as you've mentioned derives from different time frames of exercising power? Locke seems confident that humans with time in power during which they are not diverting their full energy to the public good of the commonwealth will turn to their selfish interests, thus necessitating separate branches of government. Essentially, Locke's model of power separation only works when the legislature sets down laws which become the antecedent and positive statements to govern the executive and federative branches of the commonwealth. The legislative precedes the executive, and each works with a different time frame. Temporality and chronology of power across the branches of the commonwealth creates another platform other than the ones that you've discussed above to assess how much his model on paper resembles the US government today.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of Nikhil's comment, temporality and chronology of power allows for the progression of policy. As politicians cycle in and out of the various branches of government, power is not concentrated amongst a certain party of individuals. Furthermore, as the population grows and the voices of the people evolve, the positions of the branches of government can represent those ideals.
ReplyDeleteThis being said, corruption is ever present. The influences of money and media have established a mirage regarding the true picture of politics. There is an abuse of power because of the prioritization and bias of political duties based on other centers of power (corporations, people, polities, etc). This can been in the current political turmoil regarding the communications between President-elect Trump and foreign leaders who are against China. Moreover, branches like the legislative and judiciary cannot control these actions. Thus, this model of government has holes that shift the balance of power unequally.