Suchergebnisse

In this study Tapani Turkka offers a discussion of the origins of parliamentarism in the context of early 18th century Britain. This is accomplished in the perspective of Dr. Turkka's new interpretation of John Locke's political thought in the Second Treatise. In this interpretation the exercise of state power is not by nature political but must be separately constituted as such. According to Turkka, Locke finds this possible to his contemporaries and succeeding generations of men. The origins of parliamentarism is seen to mean this very process of constitution of the use of state power as political. It is argued that this took place without a precedent during Sir Robert Walpole's long ascendancy (1721-1742) and due to his innovative policies. Samuel Sandys' motion (1741) to remove Walpole from his office as Prime Minister embodies in a compact form the problems involved in the use of state power constituted as political in the context of early 18th century Britain emanating from the revolution of 1688. As such it allows a concentrated study of the origins of parliamentarism. This work will be of great interest and importance for scholars in political science and history

This article is about Locke's presence in politics. In this context the prevailing understanding is that the heyday of Locke's presence is dated to the turn of 1670s and 1680s. This interpretation was launched by Peter Laslett in 1960 in the "Introduction" to his critical edition of Locke's Two Treatises. Today this understanding directs scholars' efforts in Locke studies; it is a major component of the prevailing Locke-paradigm. Because of this, challenges to the Laslettian understanding merit especial attention. To this effect is e.g. Mark Knights's recent paper (2011) in which his objective is to contribute to the development of an alternative understanding of Locke's presence in politics. This article critically reviews Knights's study. I ask in what sense his contribution is a challenge to the Laslettian paradigm. It will be argued that Knights's proposition is paradoxical, and as such opens us a perspective to further Locke studies.