3 Reasons why John Locke would support Iran’s social unrest
The government governs people until it is unable to, that is when people step in to take power. After the Iranian revolution of 1979, the new government established a theocratic regime under the rule of a supreme religious leader with constitutional powers to control communication networks, dismiss or appoint servants, declare war by himself, and have control of Iran’s military and security operations such as the morality police (Frontline 2014).
This is an extreme police force that sparked strong revolutionary sentiments and movements against the current regime after a 22-yearold woman died in their custody in September of 2022. She was being held for allegedly breaking Iran’s dress code for women (The Guardian 2022). This scenario clearly shows distress between people and the government, cases analyzed by thinkers like John Locke. He provided insights into how we can develop in a civilized society by diving into a social contract that is formed on the basis of the population’s consent to the rule. Hence, the relevance this essay holds is the study of how political theories of centuries ago can still maintain importance being depicted in real-life cases today, providing a perspective on civil organization and its transformation over the years. Besides, it offers a different outlook on how civil disobedience can be explained and morally justified with regard to social relevance. Therefore, through the analysis of his theories, this essay will explain why John Locke would support a world in which Iranian citizens have the right to rebel against their sovereign.
It can be argued that Locke’s writings justify revolutions in order to combat illegitimate governments. The Iranian case can clearly be applicable to his writings since the massive protest and civil disobedience represents the strong distrust and disagreement 2 towards a dictator that abuses its population through the institutions he backs up. The assumption that Locke would agree with the previous statement relies on the following quote: “is absolutely necessary to its being a law, the consent of the society, over whom no body can have a power to make laws, but by their own consent, and by authority received from them” (Locke 1689a: section 134). This quote has shown that the government is using illegitimate law because it is not being approved by the people, and therefore alluding that having a single supreme leader goes against the social contract since it denies popular consent. Furthermore, the overall idea is to illustrate that a revolution is within the rights of the citizen in order to be justifiable. Thereupon, that idea is supported by Locke’s argument that “one supreme power, which is the legislative, to which all the rest are and must be subordinate, yet the legislative being only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends, there remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them” (1689a: section 149). Thus explaining that the citizens have the right to take back the trust they vested in a leader if he does not meet the requirements of a beneficiary ruling. It is also important to take notice that Locke argues that some societies vest power onto the executive and not into the legislative, and in those cases where one single person governing in the executive branch is also denominated as a supreme leader (idem: section 151).
As far as religion is concerned, Iran’s government heavily influences a mandate to follow an extreme version of Shia Islam, having violations of religious freedom.(USCRIF 2022). Locke’s position on this topic defends that the state should not enforce a religion, indicating that he would support a revolution in the matters of defending the religious consent of the population. Locke specifically argues that “whether the magistrate join himself to any church, or separate from it, the church remains always as it was before — a free and voluntary society.”(1689b: 13). This idea imposes that religion is a voluntary society, and should not be a burden for a citizen in choosing whether or not to practice it, an ideal incompatible with Iran’s case of the young woman’s death; again alluding to the idea that rebellion is protection to those rights since its a direct attack on freedom. 3 With regard to an evaluation of Locke’s arguments, they are valid in the sense that they support the thesis firstly by demonstrating that a revolution can be justifiable in special cases in order to reach a civilized state. Secondly, the analysis proves that Iran is one of those cases by illustrating two main points: illegitimate behavior by a government, and not respecting the religious consent of the people. Locke’s views present logic because a civilized society cannot be reached when the freedom and the rights of the people are infringed as it would create a constant state of battle for liberty, engaging in wars. This positive evaluation can be compromised with criticism when we consider the topic of women’s rights. A different perspective might argue that Locke would not be in favor of the revolution because it sparked by the breaching of women’s rights, even though his writings present a lenient feminist opinion, it falls short when recognizing equality among the sexes, therefore contradicting his arguments by not being applicable (Blazeski 2009). As a response to that, Locke’s arguments are partly based on the norms of his time; in today’s norms, we can discover more developed ideals on women’s rights, making it plausible to acknowledge that Locke would modify his arguments of freedom and include women if those were written under today’s social norms, considering his feminist leaning, consequently, still supporting the revolution. Nevertheless, even if some may find the previous assumption to be logically weak and declare it invalid, Locke would still support the revolution on the grounds of protecting men’s rights since their peace is disturbed because their wives and daughters are being killed, a nonconsensual policy they reject.
Thus far, the arguments this essay presents pass the evaluation because they follow a logical structure on how a revolution in this case would lead to a better outcome for Iran on the basis that the current government generates chaos and restricts people’s rights by restraining their liberty and consent. In essence, I agree with Locke that a revolution is justifiable in Iran, the analyzed case proves the relevance an assessment of a government can be to determine if its actions go against its people, and what the limit is until the population reacts through social unrest to change the status quo.
Bibliography
Blazeski, M. (2009). “Locke’s view of women”, https://polsci101.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/lockes-view-ofwomen/#:~:text=Locke%20establishes%20the%20status%20through,honored%20a nd%20respected%20by%20children. Consulted on Friday 17th, March 2023.
Frontline (2014). “The Structure of Power in Iran”, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/inside/govt.html. Consulted on Sunday 12th, March 2023.
Locke, A. (1689a). “Second Treatise of Government”, Project Gutenberg, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm#CHAPTER_VIII.
Locke, A. (1689b). A Letter Concerning Toleration. Ontario: McMaster University
The Guardian (2022). “Iran’s protests flare in several cities amid continuing unrest”, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/17/iran-protests-flare-in-severalcitiesamid-continuing-unrest. Consulted on Sunday 12th, March 2023.
(USCIRF) United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (2022). 2022 Annual Report. Washington, D.C: USCIRF
