Enhancement of freedom leads to responsible community

Ronald Meinardus, Resident Representative, Friedrich-Naumann Foundation, Manila

In a recent television interview, the anchorman asked me to give a definition of liberalism. I answered that at the center of all liberal endeavors stands the promotion of the freedom of the individual. Before I had the chance to elaborate what exactly this implies the interviewer interrupted me.

"Promote freedom? Our problem here in the Philippines is that we have too much freedom."

It was not the first time I had been confronted with the perception that not a lack of freedom, but, on the contrary, too much freedom is a root-cause of many problems of this South East Asian nation. During my years in South Korea I often heard people praise the "good old days" under the iron fist of General Park Chung-hee. And I am told that in Indonesia, too, only a few years after the introduction of democratic politics nostalgia for the Soeharto-regime is spreading rapidly.

In Asia and in other parts of the world, supporters of authoritarianism argue that civil liberties are expendable; freedom, so goes their argument, opens the door to unruliness and is, therefore, detrimental to economic and social advancement. Often, the same opponents of democratic principles go one step further and insinuate that freedom promotes chaos and anarchy -- and that only they are the true protectors of what they term law and order. For democrats this populist rhetoric poses a major challenge. Therefore, it is important to refute it.

To begin with, the objective of liberal democracy is not limitless freedom. While liberals favor individual liberty and fervently promote it, this does not mean that they want a situation where everyone can do whatever he or she wants. That would boil down to anarchy and arbitrariness -- exactly the opposite of what liberals strive for.

Let us go back to the historical roots and the origins of liberal democracy. In the 18th and 19th centuries, democratic ideas and concepts emerged in the Western hemisphere as a reaction to the despotic rule of the autocrats -- kings, noblemen and other unaccountable rulers.

In a protracted battle of epochal dimensions, the progressive forces eventually succeeded in overcoming the supremacy of the autocrats and imposed a constitutional order. For the first time in human history a political order was established in which the rights and the dignity of the citizens were ranked higher than the supremacy of the state; constitutionalism and the rule of law were invented.

Basically, liberalism (like conservatism or socialism/communism) has a set of principles and rules according to which a society should be organized. As I said earlier, the principle of individual freedom stands at the center of these values. An essential ingredient of liberal ideology is this; that the exercise of individual freedom is not gained at the expense of the freedom of another individual.

While liberals cherish their personal freedom above all other freedoms they, at the same time, aspire for an order that safeguards the freedom of all other members of society. Therefore, a liberal society is not a society where everyone can do as he or she feels fit. With freedom comes responsibility.

Liberals argue that all members of society must compromise some personal freedoms so that other members of the same society are not curtailed in their freedom. An old legal axiom illustrates this relation between the two liberal core principles of freedom and responsibility: Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose.

There are countless examples that illustrate the relationship between freedom and responsibility and the necessity to limit individual freedom in a social setting. While liberals are the champions of the freedom of opinion this certainly does not imply that they condone the dissemination of false or defamatory information.

Here, the freedom of the press must go hand in hand with the editorial responsibility of accurate and balanced reporting. Another example: While I would argue against the prohibition of cigarette smoking, I strongly support the idea of smoke-free public areas, for scientific research has established that so- called passive smoking is a health hazard. In other words, the smokers' freedom ends where my freedom (to inhale clean air) is affected.

The relationship between freedom and responsibility also has economic implications. While liberals favor the market economy and economic freedom, this like all other freedoms is not limitless. Economic freedom should be curtailed by social responsibility. Individual liberty should come together with solidarity.

According to the liberal ideal every member of society is entitled to equal chances and a life in dignity. This humanitarian conviction has led to the formation of the welfare state, which liberal democrats in many countries have helped create and sustain.

Ironically, in many parts of the underdeveloped world the challenge today is the provision of basic social infrastructure such as education, health and housing while, at the same time, numerous industrialized nations are struggling with the adverse effects of an overblown and in parts dysfunctional welfare state.

"Without the substantive freedom and capability to do something, a person cannot be responsible for doing it", writes Amartya Sen. Referring to the existential significance of such basic "capabilities" as housing, education and employment, the Indian Nobel laureate argues that "responsibility requires freedom".

In other words, one needs to be free to act in a responsible manner. If the political objective is to promote a responsible community, this can only be achieved by enhancing freedom -- and, at the same time, improving the "capabilities" of the masses. Irrespective of ideological orientation, this remains the main challenge for public policy in all less developed countries of our world.