Why does Locke support prerogative?

            Locke describes prerogative as a necessary power of government to act quickly to emergencies. He says it is the “power to act according to discretion, for the public good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it.” (Paragraph 160) Normal laws passed are rules and guidelines for expected situations but for all situations when big government will act too slowly, Locke says the extra power must be held by the executive.

            Though Locke is concerned with the liberty and property rights of the individual in his works, his description of prerogative bears a striking similarity to Hobbes’ view on the Leviathan. Locke is not concerned with an abusive use of prerogative because government exists to promote the common good and any act of the government is cannot be a hindrance to the public good. (Paragraph 163) This is reminicant of Hobbes’ view that the Leviathan is a culmination of the community and so all acts of the Leviathan have support from the community

.

            We see this in ancient history when Rome would hand power to a tyrant who wielded supreme power in cases of emergency, the notable example is Cincinnatus, and we continue to see it today with an expanding executive branch in our federal government. Yet, neither example are without mistrust. It is true that there is implied trust when the people hand power to a single man or branch of government, but the Romans learned to take caution as more men began to misuse their prerogative. There are also huge backlashes against the expansion of federal power since 9/11 with wire-tappings, a suspension of liberties, drone strikes, etc.

            Locke clearly holds mistrust of an unchecked executive power as he wrote this while hiding in another country from, in his view, a tyrannical king. Why, then, does he promote this idea of prerogative?