|
Whereas the earlier civil war had divided the country and pitted the two political parties, Whigs and Tories, against one another, in 1688 both parties united in demanding that James II vacate the throne. Consequently the king was left with little support and had little alternative but to honor the demand of Parliament and leave the country. Parliament then declared the throne vacant and invited William and Mary to rule as joint sovereigns and as constitutional monarchs.
From this political transition emerged a new concept of sovereignty as residing in the King-in-Parliament and of the relationship of the two parties as one of governing party and the kings loyal opposition. Thus dissent was domesticated and given a voice and a place in the decision-making process. This concept of a two party system with the party out of power recognized as loyal and legitimate became a central theme in the American constitutional system.
James II fled to France and there tried to enlist the support of France and of
other monarchies for military action to restore him to the throne of England. The
argument used was the familiar divine right one: Kings rule by divine right. That is,
kings are responsible only to God. Subjects must be obedient; God will judge a bad
ruler; this is not the responsibility of subjects.
To counter the effect of this argument, the noted English philosopher John Locke published Two Treatises of Government in 1690 defending the Parliaments dismissal of the king. Locke presented against the divine right theory what is called the social compact theory of government. He insisted that governments are not created by God but by people themselves for very pragmatic purposes. Every human being, he insisted, has the right to life, to liberty, and to his own property. However, in ancient times people learned that for every individual to protect his own life, liberty, and property is an inefficient and dangerous way to proceed. So, argued Locke, peoples banded together into societies and created social compacts or contracts. Basically, they agreed that they would be governed by a ruler. They would subject themselves to a state, they would support, pay for, and defend their state, so that the state could protect their basic rights.
However, for Locke, the government compact was like any other contract. It required performance of its terms by both parties. Therefore, he reasoned, if a king fails to protect the life, liberty, and property of his subject; if, instead, the king abuses and violates these rights, then the people are relieved of any obligation to obey the king and have a right to dismiss him. As Locke viewed the English revolution of 1688-89, it was not the Parliament that revolted but the king. When James II ceased being a good king and performing his contractual obligations, the Parliament had no alternative but to fire him and find a new king who would act properly. Thus Locke sought to remove the mystery of kingship, the claim that it rested on the will of God, and to replace that claim with one that kingship rests on a contract with the people which, if violated by either party, terminates the obligation of the other.
This Lockean way of looking at government shaped the American defense of their own revolution a century later. Jeffersons Declaration of Independence is essentially a listing of the ways in which Americans believe that the English king had violated their rights and thus lost the right to govern them. Not surprisingly, when the Americans got around to writing their own constitution, a considerable part of it was shaped in such a way as to guarantee the sovereignty of the people and to limit the ability of an office holder to violate his (or her) obligations. This is the source of the American conviction that people, not governments, are sovereign and that constitutions must protect the people and their rights against encroachment by the government.
|
