Not Ripe For Freedom

Ask a person if all men should be free and the likely answer will be “yes”.

Move the conversation from the theoretical to the empirical, from the general to the specific, and you will be surprised by the kind of different answers you may receive.

In recent conversations on the outcome of the popular uprisings that have upset the Arab world since early 2011, I have been repeatedly confronted with the argument that some people, for cultural, religious, or whatever reason, “are not ripe for freedom.” Supporters of different strands of this argument use the current examples of chaos in post-Qaddafi Libya, violence in post-Mubarak Egypt, disorder in post-Saleh Yemen, and protracted armed confrontation in post- (?) Assad Syria to prove that some people, especially in the Arab world, are not ready to be “free”. It seems to me that hidden behind many of these arguments is the legacy of the XVIII century concept of the “white man’s burden”, according to which the “better” people should encourage the “lesser” people to develop socially, politically, and economically until the latter can eventually take their own place in the world.

Nevertheless, if one accepts the assumption that some people are not ripe for freedom, freedom will never be achieved;
for one cannot arrive at the maturity for freedom without having already acquired it; one must be free to learn how to make use of one’s powers freely and usefully.
The first attempts will surely be brutal and will lead to a state of affairs more painful and dangerous than the former condition under the dominance, but also the protection, of an external authority.
However, one can achieve reason only through one’s own experiences and one must be free to be able to undertake them.
To accept the principle that freedom is worthless for those under one’s control and that one has the right to refuse it to them forever, is an infringement on the rights of God himself, who has created man to be free.

Those are not my words but Immanuel Kant’s (the above excerpt is cited in Michael Bakunin’s Etatism et Anarchie, ed. Arthur Lehning, 1967). Kant’s remarks are especially interesting because of their context. In fact, the German philosopher wrote them during the so-called Reign of Terror (end of XVIII century) in defense of the French Revolution. Kant was defending the Revolution against those who claimed that the violence unleashed during the Reign of Terror showed that the masses were unprepared for the privilege of freedom.

I cannot help being impressed by the contemporary relevance of Kant’s words.

I believe that no rational individual should condone violence and terror. However, the same rational individual should not be too quick to condemn the violence that often occurs when long-subdued people rise against their autocratic oppressors and take the first difficult steps toward freedom.

It seems to me that when we look at the popular uprisings in the Arab world we are quick to condemn the violence associated with the upheaval but we easily forget what triggered such violence in the first place. Autocrats generally seize and maintain power through violence. Unfortunately, a certain level of violence might be the only way for oppressed people to take that power back from them.

That said, there remain several unresolved vexing issues.

In order to prompt a debate on the topic, let’s narrow down the concept of freedom to political freedoms, and in particular to those political freedoms generally enjoyed in a sound form of democratic government.

Some questions immediately come into the mind:

1) What if democratic institutions bring to power elites or groups that are not committed to democratic values? Or, at least, to the kind of democratic values that we cherish in the West? Put in other words, what if political freedom becomes license to opt for destructive radicalization?

2) Could we expect autocratic leaderships to be credible mid-wives for countries undergoing difficult processes of democratic transition? How do we value the establishment of democratic institutions and practices (a parliament or elections) in terms of achieving political freedom?

3) Is there any factual ground to the argument that a specific culture or religion makes people more or less “ripe” for political freedom?

4) What does history tell us about the path that western societies followed to free themselves from their own oppressive autocrats? Was it a peaceful or a violent one?

Let’s the discussion begin…

Advertisements

3 comments

  1. Louis Odle

    1) What if democratic institutions bring to power elites or groups that are not committed to democratic values?

    To this question my response is what we have now. There is no commitment without application in good conscience.

    Could we expect autocratic leaderships to be credible midwives for countries undergoing difficult processes of democratic transition? How do we value the establishment of democratic institutions and practices (a parliament or elections) in terms of achieving political freedom?

    Any value placed, is placed due to individual interpretation and in part those who rule.

    3) Is there any factual ground to the argument that a specific culture or religion makes people more or less “ripe” for political freedom?

    To this question is yes and no. There are many, many people who simply capitulate to fear. Fear of death, fear of hell, of not obtaining eternal life by whatever means is, the impetus for Religion mostly, with some exceptions. Culture is also in many instances subject to capitulation by fear. Every man by innate nature at some point will realize the value of freedom. Unless they perceive that they have no prerequisite skills to sustain them by choice of being free and independent.

    4) What does history tell us about the path that western societies followed to free themselves from their own oppressive autocrats? Was it a peaceful or a violent one?

    Freedom by any definition or interpretation has been and shall be violent. Due to simply the refusal of those who lust for power and control, due to lack of conscience understanding and agreement that anyone but they shall enjoy as much or more of the substance of life. Power is only realized when there are those that are subjects. For if in these mines all are free and of equal stature, then there can be no satisfaction within them.

    Like

    • Mike

      (1) The West needs to actively send ‘missionaries’ to prothlesize western values to the rest of the world, targeting the population. This must be done first, and governments encouraged to change only after that first step is successful.

      (2) (i) Only rarely. (ii) Very highly. I would put a free press as most important, since truth can pressure governments to behave better. Next I would place an independent judiciary. Voting I would put last, as it is a fig-leaf covering corruption if the other two are not there.

      (3) Yes, in that it is possible to imagine or design a culture that made its people “less ripe” for political freedom. One must then actively consider how close a real culture is to such a hypothetical anti-freedom culture.
      More specifically: religion is a form of group-think, and group-think can lead organisations (including countries) down a dead-end, and you cannot teach people to avoid group-think whilst refusing to question religion.
      E.g. imagine a political and economic system that you think is rubbish, and likely to cause huge social problems. Imagine a religion that implemented that system as it doctrine. In such a case, you would not be able to teach people to engage in debate about their political system, without the possibility of offending their religions sensibilities. You cannot have “freedom – except religion is always off limits”. And you won’t know what parts of a religion are wrong, unless you can debate every part of all religions.

      (4) Mostly violent, but I think more importantly, always very chaotic.

      Like

  2. orwell1627

    Kant is certainly a tough read. He makes a case in the Critique of Pure Reason that he has silenced the critics of morality and religion forever through his critique of the scope and limits of human understanding.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s