Salus populi suprema lex: John Locke Versus Contemporary Democratic Theory

Abstract

Contemporary democratic theorists focus on democratic processes to the exclusion of the substantive goods which motivated their predecessors. This undermines the legitimacy of democracy, especially in an era of emerging democracies. This article critiques underlying deficiencies in contemporary theory and prescribes revisiting early modern, natural-law-based democratic theory exemplified by John Locke. Locke argued that the ultimate legitimacy of democratic processes depends on their serving the good of the people, as distinct from the will of the people. The authors argue that this conclusion is unavoidable, because it is impossible for democratic legitimacy to rest ultimately on any kind of process at all, even a democratic process. Legitimacy must rest on a substantive norm used to govern (create or repair) processes. Contemporary democratic theory seems unwilling to revisit this important problem.