Problem:
Is a bad leader better than no leader at all?
For this assignment, consider the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke regarding revolution. Who got it more right? Should people accept bad leadership or revolt and risk falling into chaos and violence?
To illustrate your point, research an example from a country that highlights the strengths or weaknesses of either philosopher.
For example, to highlight the strengths of Locke, research a country where people fought against the government and ended up creating a better society. To highlight the strengths of Hobbes, research a country where the people fought against the government the result was worse than it was with the "bad" leader. Discuss only ONE COUNTRY in your case study. Below is an example of how the paper can be organized:
- Introduction of country - key information about history, geography, demographics
- Exposition of situation prior to revolution
- Key elements of revolution - causes, leaders, major events, length of time amount of death/destruction, or amount of lives saved/people freed (if applicable)
- Situation after revolution - Did it improve? In what ways? Did it get worse? In what ways? (The answer will probably be a combination of both. Please try to give a balanced analysis)
- Based on the outcome, who's theory was proven to be true, Hobbes or Locke? Why? What elements of their theory was upheld by events of the country? Were any disproven?
You must include at least 7 sources. Seven, is the bare minimum, feel free to include more. Sources should include information on the country as well sources on the theory on Hobbes and Locke. Length: 1,000 - 1,200 words