John Locke and Civil/Political Societies: Failure and Success

John Locke approaches government and the social contract a little differently then our dear friend Hobbes. Locke seems to have a little more faith in humans than does Hobbes. He asserts that "men" will do what is necessary to preserve their fundamental rights of life, liberty, estate, and freedom from injury from other "men". He goes on to say that one way of preserving those rights peacefully is to come together as a community.

This community would become the foundation for Democracy and, to a lesser extent, the revolutionary era of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The application of citizens of a nation banding together to establish legislation over themselves was a radical idea at the time. In today's world most societies see it as the best form of government. Representative democracies and majority rule have led many nations to form peaceful and relatively long lasting governments. Notable democracies that have had success are nations like the United States, France, Canada, and the Scandinavian nations.

This is not the case in all democracies. Often people elected to public office become corrupted by power and dismantle their own countries. (Such is the case in many of the new nations of post-colonial Africa). This happens due to a variety of reasons. These reasons range from differentiation of ideas of how nations should be run, to long standing cultural strife's and controversies.

Although Locke's notions of self rule by a community of the willing to submit provide an excellent rationale for a nation, it is in no way fool proof. Does anyone know of a way to better his ideas, or figure out a way for a new system of government?