This essay applies John Locke's political philosophy — specifically his definition of tyranny from the Second Treatise on Government — to the rule of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Locke argues that legitimate government exists to protect citizens' life, liberty, health, and property through a social contract, while a tyrant uses power solely for personal enrichment and self-preservation. The paper traces Mugabe's rise to power on anti-colonial and democratic promises, then examines how his suppression of coalition partners, military intervention in the Congo for personal gain, intimidation of journalists, electoral fraud, and economic mismanagement each satisfy Locke's criteria for tyranny rather than legitimate sovereignty.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
The history of colonialism and the history of political philosophy have given rise to many ironies. One early manifestation of this irony was when the seventeenth-century British philosopher John Locke's Second Treatise on Government provided the philosophical justification for the American Founding Fathers to resist the English government's domination over the North American colonies. Locke's assertion that the protection of the citizen's life, liberty, and property was the ultimate aim of government — not the monarchy's self-interested self-preservation — was echoed in the language of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
A tyrant, in Locke's framework, is a sovereign who attempts merely to protect and enshrine his own power and to enrich himself, rather than to protect his citizens as required by the implied social contract of government. In that social contract, citizens sacrifice some of the liberties of the natural state in exchange for the personal protection provided by sovereignty. The early American colonists used the British-born Locke's language to condemn King George III's colonial rule. Today, the ruler of the former British Commonwealth territory of Zimbabwe — Robert Mugabe — fits this definition of tyranny even more precisely than the British king ever did, inflicting gross abuses upon his citizenry merely to keep himself in luxury and power. This is true even though Mugabe came to power in the name of freedom and anti-colonialism, promising to help throw off the last vestiges of British rule.
According to Locke, the defining distinction between a tyrant and a legitimate sovereign is whether the ruler upholds the fundamental aim of civil government: to preserve, as far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health, and property of its citizens. A sovereign may legitimately prosecute and punish those who violate the rights of others, and may pursue the public good even where this conflicts with the rights of individuals. However, the only good a tyrant upholds is his own private good, and he grants privileges to those who act in his personal self-interest.
A legitimate sovereign justifies his or her power by providing something unavailable in the state of nature — impartial judges to determine the severity of crimes, and punishments proportionate to offenses, for the benefit of the larger citizenry. A tyrant, by contrast, uses fear along with judicial and political power to keep the people in a state of illegitimate slavery and subjugation. Illegitimate slavery, in Locke's sense, is the condition in which someone possesses absolute power over another without just cause — the very state that Locke argues absolute monarchs wish to impose upon their subjects.
In the British press, Mugabe has been described as "one of the grand old men of African politics," evoking the early days of anti-colonialism in Africa, when opposing British rule was sufficient to secure a leader's international support regardless of his treatment of his own people. When Robert Mugabe came to power in 1980 in Zimbabwe, he spoke glibly of peace and co-operation after decades of white colonial rule and a bitter civil war between Zimbabwean factions. Taking the helm of the newly renamed nation, he was quickly elevated to the ranks of international statesman. He justified his power by pointing to the immediate wave of popular support from ordinary citizens and made early political promises of reconciliation and democracy. These promises, however, were quickly overtaken by authoritarian suppression — first of his allies, and then of opposition parties (BBC News, 2000).
Almost immediately, Mugabe attacked members of the coalition government in which the people had invested their support and trust. Both factions had fought the British government, including the ZAPU faction led by Joshua Nkomo, but Mugabe claimed that "the discovery of a large arms cache at ZAPU-owned houses" necessitated Nkomo's dismissal from government (BBC News, 2000). Whether the allegations were true or not, Mugabe has ruled as an authoritarian leader ever since. Having consolidated his power in a non-coalition — and thus effectively non-elected — government that did not carry the people's original mandate, his rule ceased to rest on the legitimate foundation of popular consent.
"Congo war exploited for personal and political gain"
"Journalist intimidation, repression, and flawed elections"
"Economic collapse and broken land reform pledges"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.