Although academic studies have often grappled with the question of what form of government is ideal and what the goal of government should be, there can be no an absolute answer to this question questions, not simply because there has been no consensus within the academic community, but because these questions cannot be separated from the policies that will carry the implications of the answer. Therefore, it is pertinent that they should be examined in a particular context. Mill advocates a representative government in which sovereignty is vested in the aggregate of the community, while Locke advocates a majoritarian government in which the legislative is supreme, although it prescribes some limitations on it and is coupled with a powerful executive. At first glance, representative government and majoritarian government might seem similar, but after reading their texts one can certainly deduce that they did not have the same form of government in mind because it is clear that both envisage different objectives of government. and therefore the means to achieve these ends are also different. Mill, in his consideration of representative government, states that the purpose of good government is twofold. First is to what extent the government machinery takes advantage of people's existing good faculties (protective objective) and secondly to what extent it contributes to the improvement of such qualities (educational objective). For him it is therefore essential that the government "improves" the masses and makes them an active part of the national discourse. So if a government forces citizens to be only passive recipients of its actions it is a bad government. At first glance it may seem like a very noble idea to pursue, but it may also imply... a means of paper... an ideal, but it is the right form of government for people who have not reached a certain level. level of development. Locke believes that absolute monarchy is not suitable for civil society because property is not secure and can be taken at the pleasure of the monarch. It is strange how Mill speaks only in terms of two extreme forms of government representation and despotism, and does not indicate a way to go from despotism to government. However, while his model of government is not without flaws, it provides an extremely refined structure and is more forward-looking than Locke's model in which government does not aspire to any intellectual or political thought but only maintains the status quo. the paternal role of government is laudable but when looked at more closely it can create many problems that Mill perhaps overlooked.