ABSTRACT

Political participation and the role of citizens in governing have been central themes
explored by prominent Western philosophers throughout history. This paper examines the
contrasting viewpoints of Plato, Aristotle, J.J. Rousseau, and John Locke on the extent and
mechanisms of political participation within their respective visions of an ideal state. Plato
advocated for an aristocratic system of rule by philosopher-kings - an elite class of highly
educated and virtuous guardians. He was deeply skeptical of democracy and broad-based
political participation, fearing it would devolve into a "mob rule" governed by emotion and
demagoguery rather than reason. Aristotle, argued for a mixed constitutional government
that incorporated elements of democracy, allowing citizens to participate through elected
assemblies and juries. In contrast, J.J. Rousseau emerged as an ardent proponent of direct
democracy and popular sovereignty. He envisioned a participatory system where citizens
actively crafted the laws governing them, embodying the "general will" of the people as the
basis for political legitimacy. John Locke's conceptualization of political participation
focused on the consent of the governed and limits on state power. He posited that legitimate
authority arises from the people consenting to be ruled, and that citizens have a right to
revolt against tyrannical regimes that violate natural rights. These differing perspectives
from Plato's elitism, Aristotle's mixed approach, Rousseau's direct democracy, and Locke's
emphasis on consent shed light on the multifaceted philosophical discourse surrounding
citizen engagement in governance. Their ideas continue to inform modern debates on
democratic practices, representation, and the appropriate balance between popular
participation and effective leadership.

1
Introduction

Political participation refers to the ability and rights of citizens to take an active role in the
political process and have a voice in the decisions that affect how they are governed. It
encompasses activities like voting, campaigning, joining political organizations, protesting,
lobbying, petitioning the government, and engaging in public discourse. The importance of
ensuring meaningful political participation has been extensively theorized and debated by
philosophers across traditions and eras.

At its core, the philosophical justifications for citizen participation are often rooted in
principles like popular sovereignty, consent of the governed, individual liberty, fair
representation of societal interests, the educative benefits of participation itself, and
leveraging the collective wisdom of the populace (Mill 1861, Rousseau 1762). Across
ideologies, thinkers have argued that some form of participatory mechanism is vital for
establishing the legitimacy of governmental authority, upholding natural rights, preventing
tyranny or faction, cultivating an invested and virtuous citizenry, and producing policies and
laws that genuinely reflect the general will and common good.

The ancient Greeks, like Aristotle, saw allowing citizens to directly participate through
institutions like assemblies, councils, and courts as essential for pooling dispersed societal
knowledge, teaching pragmatic reasoning and virtues required for self-governance, and
enabling human rationality and freedom (Aristotle 1905). During the Enlightenment, pivotal
theorists like John Locke tied a government's legitimacy to deriving from the ongoing
consent of the governed as manifested through political participation - forming a bulwark
against abuse of natural rights (Locke 1689).

Thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau emphasized that only through robust participatory
processes could the general will of the political community be properly voiced and popular
sovereignty upheld. For Rousseau, alienating sovereignty to representatives amounted to
subjugation (Rousseau 1762). Liberal philosophers like John Stuart Mill defended rights of
free speech, assembly, and dissent as crucial for representing minority interests, improving
policies through open debate, and developing democratic citizenship capacities (Mill 1861).
There are ongoing vigorous debates about the best ways to put democratic ideals into practice
institutionally, and what the right limits or expansions should be on mechanisms for political

2
participation. But the underlying belief that some level of citizen participation is
fundamentally tied to principles of self-governance, human dignity, and creating good
policies has long-standing support across diverse philosophical traditions.

WHAT IS POLITICAL PARTICIPATION?

Political participation can be loosely defined as citizens’ activities affecting politics. Scholars
differ in their definition of political participation. The currently dominant view limits
participation to actions that might affect others, as in the following definitions. “By political
participation we mean activity by private citizens designed to influence government decision-
making” (Huntington and Nelson, 1976, p. 3). “By political participation, we refer simply to
activity that has the intent or effect of influencing government action – either directly by
affecting the making or implementation of public policy or indirectly by influencing the
selection of people who make those policies” (Verba et al., 1995, p. 38)

PHILOSOPHICAL IDEOLOGIES ON POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

PLATO’S IDEAS ON POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

Writing on the ideal state or polis, Plato describes it as a just state based on justice which is
the earthly manifestation of the human soul. Plato identified three major social classes in the
ideal state as, the rulers, the soldiers and the producer or workers which corresponds to the
soul’s three operative elements and corresponds respectively to the Nous, Thumos and Soma.
The Nous or Reason refers to the Philosopher Kings or rulers who with the aptitude of
wisdom govern and legislate for the polis.

They are the lovers of wisdom, truth and knowledge. This category of officials should neither
marry nor own property. The Thumos or Spirit refers to the soldiers or auxiliaries and
guardians of the rulers. They are primarily concerned with the defence of the polis. This class
must be sustained by courage and fortitude to keep order and control of workers. They must
be subject to the Philosopher Kings and must possess neither property nor wealth. The Soma
or body refers to the producers, that is, the workers in the society. members of this class are
guided by the desire for satisfaction of senses and with their desire and temperance provide
the polis with material subsistence.

3
In his view, political participation should be based on class. Only the Philosopher kings are
best fit for decision making and governance. Differing from the other philosophers like
Rousseau who thinks the general will of the people should be what constitute governance,
Plato views the political participation according to the class an individual belongs in the
society. Plato further classified democracy as deviation from the ideal state, He conceived
democracy as originating from the conflict of the minority rich and majority poor wherein the
poor emerged victorious. He described it as a society where there is equality of political
opportunity and freedom for every individual member to do as he likes. Such a society for
Plato lacks high principles and ideals and has a little restriction in desires as the law is
underrated.

Plato's Reservations about Democracy In works like The Republic, Plato levied several
critiques against the direct democracy practiced in Athens during his time. He saw it as a
flawed system where:

1. The uninformed masses are easily swayed by rhetoric and demagoguery rather than
reason and truth. This could lead to poor decisions and persecution of philosophers
(allegory of the cave).
2. People tend to vote based on appetite, emotion and narrow self-interest rather than
genuine wisdom about the greater good (democracy as rule of appetite).
3. The many can become a persecutive "tyranny of the majority" oppressing minority
viewpoints and rights in the name of populism.
4. There is a lack of specialization, with those unfit to rule being empowered to make
decisions requiring philosophical expertise (philosopher-king ideal).

Plato’s ideology of Political Participation and its application to Nigeria

Plato championed "Aristocracy" as the supreme form of governance, where only the most
capable individuals would rule for the greater good of society. In his seminal work The
Republic, he described the ideal state as a utopia governed by philosopher-kings –
enlightened rulers with immense wisdom and virtue. He viewed other systems like
democracy as inferior, considering them as degenerations from this transcendent ideal state.
Plato's concern with democracy stemmed from his belief that widespread political
participation could lead to corruption and poor decision-making, as leaders might prioritize
personal gains over the common welfare.

4
In a nation like Nigeria, with its rich tapestry of ethnic, religious, and regional diversity
spanning over 250 ethnic groups and multiple faiths, establishing a homogeneous ruling class
proves challenging without facing accusations of marginalization and lack of representation.
The Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, and Igbo groups, alongside numerous minority ethnicities, all vie
for a seat at the table of power. Broad-based participatory mechanisms like a robust federal
system and power-sharing arrangements could help ensure that the interests of all groups are
incorporated into the governance process.
Plato's critiques against democracy, perceiving it as mob rule prone to demagoguery and
emotionalism over reason, resonate with Nigeria's experiences. The country has arguably
grappled with the challenges of ethnic and religious biases in electing leaders to public
offices, rather than focusing on competency. The 2015 and 2019 general elections saw
candidates openly deploying ethnic and religious rhetoric to galvanize voter bases.
The electoral processes in Nigeria have been criticized for malpractices such as vote-buying,
ballot-stuffing, and corruption, echoing the warnings Plato raised in his ideology of an ideal
state. Independent observers like the EU Election Observation Mission have consistently
highlighted these shortcomings, with incidents like the infamous "money-bags" voting in
some areas during the 2019 polls.
While Plato's idea of rule by an elite group of the brightest minds sounds good in theory, it
clashes with the diversity in Nigeria. Finding leaders who are competent yet represent all the
different groups remains an ongoing challenge as Nigeria develops its democracy.

ARISTOTLE IDEAS ON POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

The roots of theories of political participation trace back to ancient Greek philosophers like
Aristotle. In his work Politics, Aristotle argued that the ideal constitution involves some form
of democratic rule by the citizens, allowing them a voice rather than being mere subjects. He
believed political participation was essential for citizens to cultivate the virtues required for
good governance. Aristotle developed one of the most comprehensive and influential
philosophical frameworks on the importance of political participation in ancient Greek
thought. Here are the key aspects of Aristotle's philosophy regarding citizens' participation in
politics:

The Ideal Constitution In his seminal work Politics

5
Aristotle lays out his vision of the ideal constitutional system he terms a "polity" or
"constitutional government." This represents a balanced regime blending elements of
democracy (the many poor) and oligarchy (the wealthy few). For Aristotle, the defining
feature of the polity is that political power and participation is open to all citizens on the basis
of merit and taking turns ruling and being ruled. This stood in stark contrast to the defective
regimes where one group dominates and excludes others from participation.

The Wisdom of the Multitude

A key philosophical argument Aristotle makes for robust citizen participation is that when all
segments contribute their perspectives and knowledge, the collective wisdom and judgment
will produce better decisions and laws than what a single individual or faction could achieve
alone. Essentially, he sees participation as a means of pooling information and counteracting
particular interests or factions from dominating. The "multitude" has higher truth-tracking
ability than small groups susceptible to mistaken group-think.

Aristotle makes a strong epistemological case that wide political participation by citizens will
produce better laws and policies than the limited perspectives of a single ruler or small group.
His postulations are:

 Each individual only has a partial view and limited wisdom, based on their personal
experiences and competencies. Even the most virtuous individual lacks omniscience.
 When many free persons of different backgrounds, occupations, and situations
collectively deliberate and decide courses of action, they can pool their separate
knowledge and correct each other's inevitable biases/errors.
 The multitude with its "collective wisdom" has a higher truth-tracking ability and
better judging power than smaller groups susceptible to distorted group-think or
dominance by particular interests.
 Policies formulated with input from all major societal segments will more
comprehensively reflect the good of the entire political community rather than the
narrow interests of one faction.

The Educative Function

However, beyond just aggregating input, Aristotle viewed political participation as essential
for developing the key civic virtues and practical wisdom required for effective citizenship

6
and self-governance within the polity. Aristotle saw an even more fundamental philosophical
value in participation as the key to developing the practical wisdom and civic virtues that
make self-governance possible. His arguments included:

 To exhibit full human excellence and flourishing, individuals must cultivate not just
moral virtues like courage and moderation, but crucially the intellectual virtues like
prudence, good judgment, and practical reason.
 The only way to truly instill these virtues required for effective citizenship is through
the immersive experience of actively taking part in political rule through institutional
roles like assemblies, courts, and offices.
 Serving in these roles provides a uniquely invaluable "education in virtue" as citizens
learn to deliberate, persuade, organize, judge, lead, and balance competing claims
while exercising authority.
 Without this participatory experience, the many will forever lack the competence for
sharing in self-rule and remain passive subjects rather than fully autonomous citizens.

So beyond producing wise policies, the core philosophical value Aristotle saw was
participation's indispensable role in the ethical and intellectual formation of citizens capable
of rationally governing themselves.

Freedom vs Subjugation

For Aristotle, only through participatory institutions do individuals move beyond being mere
subjects passively ruled over. Instead, they become free citizens actively exercising their
rational capacities and governing themselves collectively. Non-participatory regimes where
the many permanently lack a share of political power represent a form of subjugation denying
full human flourishing. Only by being both a ruler and ruled in turn does one attain true
liberty. To enable meaningful participation, Aristotle envisions citizens engaging through
direct democracies supplemented with representative elements. Key institutions include:

 Popular assemblies to debate laws and elect officials

 Judicial courts staffed by citizen jurors
 A system of regularly rotating elected councils and offices
 Duties spread across many citizens rather than monopolized

7
This wide dispersal and rotation of political responsibilities fostered an active, invested, and
educated body of citizen-rulers. Overall, Aristotle developed a rich philosophical framework
positioning political participation as essential for not just instrumental reasons of good
governance, but ultimately for enabling the highest expression of human rationality, civic
virtue, and freedom itself. While his specific prescriptions may be outmoded, the core
emphasis on the formative educative value of participation remains influential.

Aristotle’s Ideology on Political Participation and its applications to

Nigeria

Aristotle diverged from the views of his mentor Plato on what constitutes an ideal state.
Aristotle argued against the notion of governance by a solitary philosophical ruler or select
few. Instead, he posited that while individuals may exhibit biases or limited perspectives, the
collective "wisdom of the multitude" when all citizens contribute their knowledge and
viewpoints provides a higher probability of producing quality decisions that reflect the
general interest of society.

Aristotle also emphasized the necessity of having robust institutional frameworks to facilitate
effective political participation by the citizenry. In modern-day Nigeria, this ideology of the
"wisdom of the multitude" can be observed in the functioning of the National Assembly,
where elected representatives from different constituencies across the country convene to
deliberate, scrutinize, and enact laws and policies. Decisions are not dictated by the narrow
interests of a single individual but rather are subject to discourse and examination by the
broader assembly, aiming to incorporate diverse perspectives. Moreover, Nigeria has
established institutions that enhance political participation by its citizens. The media, for
instance, plays a crucial role in fostering political discussions, offering critiques, and
conducting opinion polls, thereby enabling citizens to engage in the political process actively.
This form of participation aids in the development of civic virtues among the populace.

Additionally, Nigeria's democratic system, with its separation of powers across the executive,
legislative, and judicial arms of government, provides opportunities for political participation
at the grassroots level through local government structures. These decentralized mechanisms
allow for greater citizen engagement and representation in decision-making processes that
directly impact their communities.

8
Regarding the issue of freedom and subjugation, Nigeria's constitutional framework enshrines
rights that empower citizens to participate in the political process actively. The rights to vote
and be voted for, freedom of association, and freedom of speech are all guaranteed, enabling
any qualified and interested citizen to contest in elections and exercise their political agency
without fear of subjugation. In essence, Nigeria's governance structures and institutions
reflect Aristotle's emphasis on harnessing the collective wisdom of the multitude through
participatory mechanisms, nurturing civic engagement, and upholding the freedoms
necessary for citizens to be active participants in the political process rather than mere
subjects.

JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU IDEAS ON POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed highly influential ideas on political participation that were
central to his theories of popular sovereignty and the "general will" as the basis for legitimate
political authority. Here are the key aspects of Rousseau's philosophy regarding citizen
participation:

The General Will

Rousseau's most famous and influential concept was the "general will" (volonté générale)
which he saw as the unified will of the political community as a whole aimed at the common
good or public interest (Rousseau 1762, Book II). This general will represents the true
sovereign authority within a body politic. However, Rousseau drew a crucial distinction
between the general will and the "will of all" (volonté de tous) which is merely an
aggregation of the particular wills of individual citizens focused on their own private interests
(Rousseau 1762, Book II). He believed the general will could only be properly discerned and
expressed through participatory processes that allowed the people to overcome their divided
particular interests.

Popular Sovereignty

For Rousseau, the only truly legitimate political order is one grounded in this philosophy of
popular sovereignty - where supreme power derives directly from the general will of the
citizens themselves, rather than being alienated to a monarch, aristocracy, or even elected
representatives (Rousseau 1762, Book I). Sovereignty must reside only in the community as a

9
whole. It cannot be divided. According to Rousseau, Sovereignty is absolute; but it resided in
the general will of the people. Sovereignty cannot be divided. It must reside only in the
community as a whole. To divide sovereignty is to destroy it sovereign belongs to the whole
community which is collective body.

The Social Contract

According to Rousseau social contract means the process by which the state of nature comes
to an end and political society is formed. Thus Rousseau has given the meaning of contract.
The contract is made and public body is established ie the state. Rousseau said only by
agreement and consent authority is justified and liberty retained. Rousseau described the
contract in the following words – “Each of us puts his person and all his power in common
under the supreme direction of the General Will. Each member became an indivisible part of
the whole and creates a moral and collective body”

Rousseau’s Ideology on Political Participation and its application to

Nigeria

The cornerstone of Rousseau's political thought rests on the notion that true legitimacy of
government arises from the collective "general will" of the citizens themselves. He advocated
for a participatory model where the people actively engage in shaping the very laws that
regulate their lives, rather than being passive subjects under the authority of a sovereign ruler.

For a nation as heterogeneous as Nigeria, comprising over 250 ethnic groups and a tapestry of
religious faiths, translating Rousseau's vision of the "general will" into broad-based political
participation presents an immense challenge, yet it is an imperative for fostering stability and
cohesion. Nigeria's federal structure offers some outlets for popular sovereignty, with citizens
exercising their franchise to elect representatives at local, state, and national levels. However,
Rousseau's ideals underscore the necessity for more direct modes of participation that
transcend periodic elections alone.

Adopting mechanisms such as public consultations, town hall meetings, and citizen's
assemblies could help amplify the diverse voices of Nigerians and infuse their collective
aspirations into policy formulation processes. This approach resonates strongly with
Rousseau's emphasis on active citizenship, as opposed to mere passive subjection.

10
Regrettably, Nigeria has encountered obstacles in fully embracing Rousseau's participatory
ideals. Low voter education and turnout, incidents of electoral malpractice, such as the
widespread vote-buying and intimidation that marred the 2019 general elections, and the
marginalization of certain groups, impede the authentic expression of the "general will."

The periodic flare-ups of ethnic and religious tensions, epitomized by the recurring conflicts
between herders and farmers across the Middle Belt region, directly contradict Rousseau's
vision of a cohesive social contract underpinned by shared values and the active consent of
all citizens.

Nonetheless, Rousseau's philosophy accentuates the profound importance of inclusive

governance and direct civic engagement in a nation as diverse as Nigeria. Concerted efforts
to fortify democratic institutions, enhance political education initiatives like the voter
education campaigns spearheaded by civil society organizations, and foster a collective sense
of common citizenship could help Nigeria better embody Rousseau's principles of popular
sovereignty and participatory democracy.

Moreover, Rousseau's warnings against the perils of factionalism and his exhortation for
citizens to prioritize the common good over narrow interests resonate profoundly with
Nigeria's ongoing efforts to transcend divisive narratives and unite around a shared national
identity, as exemplified by the Nigerian government's recent launch of a national ethics and
integrity policy. While formidable challenges persist, Rousseau's ideology furnishes a
philosophical foundation for Nigeria's continuing journey towards a genuinely participatory
and inclusive democracy that gives voice to and harnesses the collective will of its richly
diverse populace.

JOHN LOCKE’S IDEAS ON POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

John Locke's ideas on political participation were foundational to his influential theory of
natural rights, the social contract, and the legitimacy of government authority, as laid out in
his seminal work Two Treatises of Government.

State of Nature and Natural Rights

Locke considered human beings as decent fellows, far removed from quarrelsome,
competitive and selfish creatures of Hobbes. He believed desire is the main string of all

11
human, acts and a feeling of pleasure comes when desire is satisfied. The object of all human
action is the acquisition of pleasure and avoidance of pain. Locke believed in the goodness of
human nature. According to him, men are basically decent orderly and society –loving,
capable of ruling themselves. They are rational and social. Rationally is a pervasive
characteristic of man (Mahajan, 2012). Locke believed that if all were given proper
opportunities, they were bound to have equal mental development. According to him, it is
mental and not physical development which always counts. He also believed that nature itself
had blessed mankind with sparks of reason which motivates actions of people in their hair of
darkness. In pre-state civil society, it was goodwill, mutual understanding and sense of co-
operation which prevailed and governed their social relations (Mukhi, 2010).

According to Locke, he held man to be essentially rational and social- rational, in that they
could live together by the law of nature which is reason, or which at least (though not
imprinted on the mind) is knowable by reason, without the help of revelation in that they
could live by the laws of nature without the imposition of rules by a sovereign (Kapur, 2016).
He stressed on the point that all human beings are born equal, if not physical then morally.
Every individual has the right to life, liberty and property. The human beings enjoy these
simply because they are human beings and not because of their strength, wealth or position.
He stressed that these rights should be respected, but these are not enjoyed by the children
because they have no developed mind (Mukhi, 2010). According to Locke people lived in a
society in the state of nature. They were social and had right and liberties. The state of nature
was not one of universal war but one of inconvenience. The reason was that there was the
standing want of an established and known law. The law of nature was given an individual
interpretation by every individual. There was a lack of a “known and indifferent judge” who
could give an authoritative interpretation of the law of nature. Life was inconvenient because
each individual had to interpret the law of nature for himself and had also to enforce it
without the help of any other authority (Mahajan, 2012).

In his view, it is not a state of constant warfare; on the contrary, it is a state of peace,
goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation. It is a state of liberty, not a state of hence. But
in the absence of any established authority in the state of nature. It becomes very difficult to
deal with such offenders and man becomes judges of their own cases. In order to rectify this
defect, man abandoned the state of nature and enter into civil or political society by means of
a contract (Gauba, 2005).

12
The Social Contract
To remedy this, Locke argues individuals voluntarily exit the state of nature and establish
political societies and governments through a "social contract": "Men being...by nature all
free, equal and independent, no one can be...subjected to the political power of another
without his own consent" by "agreeing with others to join and unite into a community". In
this contract, some freedoms are ceded to better preserve remaining natural rights and
property (Locke 1689). As Kapur (2016) pointed out that, unfortunately, peace was not
secure in the state of nature. It was constantly inspected by the corruption and viciousness of
degenerate men. This ill condition, Locke said, was due to three important wants which
remained unsatisfied in the state of nature: 1. The want of an established, settled known law.

2. The want of a known and indifferent judge.

3. The want of an executing power to enforce just decision
In order to escape from all this and to gain certainty and security men made a contract to
enter into civil society or the state.

This contract was of all with all and Locke named it a social contract. The social contract put
an end to the state of nature and substituted it with civil society or the state. Each individual
contracted with each to give up some of the rights he possessed in the state of nature. All he
agreed to was to give up his single power of punishing to be exercised by such (authority)
alone as shall be appointed to it amongst them. The social contract was accordingly no more
than a transfer of certain rights and powers so that man’s remaining rights would be protected
and preserved. In this way, Locke recognized and established the sovereignty of the people,
and that the state existed for the people who formed it: they did not exist for it.

According to Agarwal (2008), social contract put the primitive state to an end. In the words
of John Locke, “the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges everyone;
and reason, which is that law which teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all
equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or
possessions.”

Nature of Political Authority and Consent

The state of nature was one of the liberty equalities, but it was also one where peace was not
secured being constantly upset by the “corruption and viciousness of degenerate men. It

13
lacked free important wants: The Want of an established, settled, known law; the wants of a
known and indifferent judge; and the wants of executive power to enforce just decisions.
Through the state of nature, Locke tried to tell us the meaning and importance of authority,
namely that human beings came together to ensure the observance of the laws of nature, to
guarantee the greater possibility of impartiality, in the implementation and execution of rules
that governed common life, and thereby increase the chance a peace that impartiality entailed.

Through a contract, individuals consented to submit to majority rules and organize

themselves as a community or cool society they surrendered their powers partially, namely
the three specific rights that constituted the natural right to enforce the law of nature. Once a
city was established, the individuals established a government to act as a judge in the nature
of a judiciary power of for promoting certain ends (Mukherjee and Ramaswamy, 2011).

Consent of the Governed Crucially, Locke states "the reason why men enter into society is
the preservation of their property" meaning lives, liberties and estates (Locke 1689). As such,
only governments established "by mutual consent" to uphold these purposes have legitimacy.
The moral obligation to obey only derives from "the consent of the people". If government
violates securing rights, "the people shall be judge" and can resist.

Political Participation as a Safeguard From these premises, meaningful participatory rights

are essential safeguards:

1. Exercising consent requires voting processes to "choose the persons" (Locke 1689).
2. "The people alone can appoint the form of the commonwealth" necessitating
participation.
3. Citizens must scrutinize government via rights of free "communication of truth"
(Locke 1689, Letter on Toleration).
4. They can protest injustice, being "the appeal...reserved to heaven" (Locke 1689)
5. If authorities violate trust, "The people shall be judge" allowing legitimate resistance
(Locke 1689.

Locke saw participatory rights as vital checks on potential governmental abuse of delegated
power, originally derived from the people's ongoing consent. Legislative Power and
Participation While Locke envisioned limits on direct participation in executive/federative
powers, for the legislative representing society's will, he argued: "The legislative cannot

14
transfer the power of making laws to any other hands: for it being but a delegated
power...they [the people] who gave it, cannot take it away" (Locke 1689). So Locke saw
participation in legislative affairs and choice of lawmakers through constitutional means as
essential to retaining rights and consent-based authority.

Legacy and Influence

Locke's tying of government legitimacy to consent formed through participation had
profound impact, influencing the American Revolution, U.S. Constitution, and thinkers like
Rousseau (Dunn 1969). More broadly, Locke elevated participation as a philosophical
bulwark of liberty - giving citizens an active voice against potential authority abuses (Laslett
1988). While conceptions evolved, Lockean thought established participation as vital for
legitimacy and rights protection in ways still resonant today.

John Locke’s Ideology on Political Participation and its application to Nigeria

John Locke posited that the primary purpose of government should be safeguarding the
innate natural rights of citizens, including rights to life, liberty, and property ownership
(Locke, 1689). Nigeria's 1999 Constitution, established after years of military rule, made
enshrining these types of fundamental human rights a foundational part of the legal basis for
its democracy. Key provisions in Chapter IV guarantee rights like the right to life, freedom of
thought/expression, freedom of movement, and the right to own immovable property in any
part of the country. These enshrinements closely mirror Locke's vision of government
existing to uphold and secure the natural rights of its citizens as its core purpose.

However, in practice, Nigeria has faced substantial challenges fully realizing and equitably
enforcing these constitutional rights protections for all segments of its ethnically and
religiously diverse population of over 200 million people. Incidents like the military's
shooting of peaceful protesters at Lekki tollgate in 2020 have sparked outrage over
extrajudicial actions violating the right to life. Media advocacy groups frequently report
harassment, detentions and killings of journalists that undermine freedom of expression
guarantees. Property rights conflicts have erupted in areas with ethno-religious tensions, such
as violence over land/resources between herdsmen and farmers.

15
Beyond protecting rights, a cornerstone of Locke's theory was the notion that legitimate
political authority can only derive from the ongoing consent of the governed citizens. He
argued this consent must be manifested through citizens having a voice in choosing their
representatives and leaders through free and fair electoral processes (Locke, 1689). Nigeria
has worked to institutionalize this through a regular democratic cycle of national and state-
level general elections to choose the presidency, National Assembly, state governors and
legislatures. However, the integrity and credibility of this consent-bestowing process has
often been severely undermined in practice. Violence by political militias and security forces,
voter intimidation and suppression tactics, illicit financial influence, and blatant rigging and
manipulation of results have plagued many election cycles according to international
observers.

The widespread protests over glaring irregularities in the 2007 elections prompted
establishment of an Electoral Reform Committee to address flaws. But issues persisted in
subsequent votes like the 2019 general elections, where European Union observers
cited"systemic failures" and the U.S. reported intimidation of voters and observers that "call
into question" the FREE and FAIR nature of the process necessary to reflect true democratic
consent. In essence, while Nigeria's constitutional framework and commitment to electoral
democracy aligns with Lockean ideals in theory, the country has faced substantial real-world
challenges in fully actualizing his vision of a political system derived from and existing to
uphold the natural rights and consented leadership preferences of the citizenry across all
segments of society. Ongoing governance reforms and efforts to strengthen electoral integrity
remain crucial for more completely realizing these principles.

CONCLUSION

The importance of political participation as a cornerstone of legitimate governance, societal

representation, and civic empowerment has been extensively theorized by philosophers
across diverse traditions. While perspectives differ, certain core principles and arguments
regarding citizen engagement in the political process persist. Ancient thinkers like Aristotle
laid the groundwork by positioning participation through institutions like assemblies and
courts as vital for pooling societal wisdom to craft enlightened policies benefiting the
common interest. Importantly, Aristotle also emphasized the educative function of
participation in developing the virtues and competencies required for effective self-
governance among the citizenry.
16
During the Enlightenment era, theorists such as John Locke grounded government authority
itself in the consent of the governed, implying a philosophical necessity for citizens to have
avenues to voice that consent through means like voting, petitioning, and if required, civil
resistance. Locke's linkage of rights protections to participatory mechanisms proved highly
influential. Thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau took these ideas further, contending that
only through robust, direct participation could the "general will" of the political community
be authentically expressed and its sovereignty upheld. For Rousseau, alienating sovereignty
to representatives amounted to an incoherent form of subjugation.

More recently, participatory democracy advocates have pushed for expanded roles beyond
periodic voting to include processes like public consultations, deliberative forums, and
participatory budgeting. Their aim is fostering a deeper sense of citizen ownership and input
into collective decisions. So while details vary, the philosophical traditions commonly posit
participation as fundamental for conferring legitimacy, upholding rights, articulating societal
interests, leveraging dispersed knowledge, promoting autonomy over subjugation, and
instilling vital civic virtues and competencies.

17
REFERENCE

Agarwal, R.C (2008). Political Theory (Principles of Political Science). S. Chand and
Company Pvt Ltd.

Aquinas, T. (2007). Commentary on Aristotle's Politics. Trans. Richard J. Regan.

Indianapolis Publishing Co.: Hackett.

Barker, E. (1959). The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. London: Methuen, 1906;
repr. New York: Russell & Russell.

Barnes, J., Malcolm, S., & Richard, S. (Eds.) (1977). Articles on Aristotle, vol. 2, Ethics and
Politics. London: Duckworth.

Bodeus, R. (1993). The Political Dimensions of Aristotle's Ethics. Albany: SUNY Press.

Cohen, M. (2001). Political Philosophy from Plato to Mao. Sterling Virginia, London: Pluto
Press.

Depew, D. J. (2009). The Ethics of Aristotle's Politics. In Ryan K. Balot (Ed.) A Companion
to Greek and Roman Political Thought. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, pp. 399-418.

Gauba, O. P (2005). An Introduction to Political Theory. Rajiv Beri for Macmillan India Ltd.

Irwin, T. H. (1985). Moral Science and Political Theory in Aristotle. History of Political
Thought pp. 150–68.

Johari, J. C (2013). Contemporary Political Theory. Sterling Publishers Pvt Ltd.

Jowett, B. (1984). The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford Translation, vol. 2,
ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kapur, A. C. (n.d.). Principles of Political Science. S. Chand and Company Pvt Ltd.

Kelly, P. (2011). Introduction to Modern Political Thought. University of London.

18
Keyt, D. & Fred, D. M. Jr. (Eds.) (1991). A Companion to Aristotle's Politics. Oxford:
Blackwell.

Kraut, R. (2002). Aristotle: Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kraut, R. & Steven, S. (2005). Aristotle's Politics: Critical Essays (eds.). Lanham MD:
Rowman and Littlefield.

Locke, J. (1689). Two treatises of government. London.

Lord, C. & David, O'C. (Eds.) (1991). Essays on the Foundations of Aristotelian Political
Science. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Mahajan, V. D. (2012). Political Theory. S. Chand and Company Ltd. Mukherjee, S. &
Ramaswamy, S. (2011). A History of Political Thought:

Miller, F. D. Jr. (1995). Nature, Justice, and Rights in Aristotle's Politics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Mulgan, R. G.(1977). Aristotle's Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nichols, M. (1992). Citizens and Statesmen: A Study of Aristotle's Politics. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefied.

Plato to Marx. Prentice-Hall of India Pvt Ltd.

Mukhi, H.R. (2010). Political Thought “History of Western Political

Roberts, J. (2009). Philosophy Guidebook to Aristotle and the Politics. London and New
York: Routledge.

Rousseau, J.-J. (1762). On the Social Contract. Amsterdam.

Sabine, G. H. & Thorson, T. L. (1937). History of Political Theory. Oxford and IBH
Publishing Co. Pvt Ltd.

Simpson, P. (1998).A Philosophical Commentary on the Politics of Aristotle. Chapel Hill:

University of North Carolina Press.

Thought: Plato to Present Day”. Surjeet Book Depot(s) Regd.

Yack, B. (1993). The Problems of a Political Animal: Community, Justice, and Conflict in
Aristotelian Political Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.

19