Liberalism and leadership: Lockean roots

Abstract

Liberal thought has paid scant attention to leadership as a conceptual issue. Liberalism has emphasized constraint of public authority yet it has expected leaders to rise to its service. What is the meaning of leadership to a political philosophy so individualistic, contingent and egalitarian? This question opens a new perspective to much examined subjects. Students of leadership and students of liberalism have made no attempt to unite their interests. But, leadership, understood in contemporary terms and applied retrospectively to liberalism, can be a fruitful line of investigation. John Locke's Second Treatise serves as a place to begin. Concern with public power and authority has confused them with leadership to such an extent in the liberal mind that leadership has been largely taken for granted as a function of institutional authority. Liberalism's focus on limiting public authority has distorted its comprehension of the role of leaders in the polity. Yet, Locke's discussion of prerogative wrestles with the necessity of leadership which reaches beyond institutional authority to achieve the public good. Locke's argument may be read to support a view that leadership is necessary, but not sufficient, to the creation, preservation and progress of liberal society.