In this chapter we will discuss the principle of liberty. The word ‘liberty’ has come from the Latin word libertas or liber meaning ‘free’. As a principle of political theory, it signifies the sphere of freedom to the individual against the authority of the State or any such authority delegated. In this sense, it means ‘absence of restraint’ or ‘being left alone’. As such, liberty implies such a sphere of an individual’s activity, which is not interfered by any authority. However, in a second sense, liberty is used to signify not only absence of restraint and being left alone to act as one chooses but also the presence of certain socio-economic and other enabling conditions, which make enjoyment of liberty meaningful. In the second sense, it relates to some kind of personal development, self-realization or fulfilment. Thus, there have been two streams of arguments as to whether this sphere of liberty should be interfered or un-interfered from the authority. If it is absence of restraint then the individual’s sphere of activity should remain un-interfered with. But if it is taken as provision of enabling conditions, then it implies interference so that those provisions can be made. While in the first sense, it is referred to as ‘negative liberty’, in the second sense it is called ‘positive liberty’. Given the fact that liberty has been treated as a distinguished principle emerging from liberalism, the streams of negative liberty and positive liberty have been a debate within the liberal framework. Adam Smith and David Ricardo (Laissez-faire advocates), John Locke (social contractualist), F. A. Hayek, Isaiah Berlin, Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick (neo-liberals), and others such as Tom Paine, Herbert Spencer, etc., are identified as advocates of negative liberty. J. S. Mill (utilitarian), T. H. Green (idealist), L. T. Hobhouse, R. H. Tawney, J. A. Hobson, H. J. Laski, R. M. MacIver, Ernest Barker and C. B. Macpherson have advocated positive liberty. Amartya Sen (developmental economist and a Nobel laureate) has advocated a broader concept of freedom as expansion of human capacity.
In liberal framework, the two terms, liberty and freedom, are often treated synonymously. This is because they signify that principle of political theory, which poses the individual’s sphere of action in relation to the authority of the state and advocates absence of any interference in individual’s sphere of action or seeks some enabling conditions for self-realization or fulfilment but that too in individual terms. However, within the liberal framework also, liberty or freedom has not always been posed only against the constituted authority of the state. Thinkers such as Alex de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill expressed that liberty or freedom also means non-interference from the force of the majority in society. Mill was particular about protecting individual liberty against what he termed as ‘the tyranny of the majority’.1
Tocqueville’s assumption is that desire for equality in liberal democracy, which destroys liberty when carried to its extreme, is the root cause of majority tyranny.2 Apprehension of these writers emerges in the context of liberal democracy that espouses the majority rule as operational principle of governance. In liberal framework, negative liberty or freedom is absence of interference by the constituted authority of the state and its organs as well as the collective force of the majority in society.
While the term liberty is generally associated with liberalism, the term freedom is applied universally. Liberal thinkers use the term freedom in the sense of liberty. Idealists and those who support the organic view of state-individual relationship (Rousseau and Hegel) present freedom as realization of an individual’s personality as part of a great idea. For Rousseau, General Will is the ultimate source of freedom. Each individual is to realize one’s freedom as part of the General Will, nothing above, nothing beyond. Failing this, ‘one will be forced to be free’. For Hegel, the modern state is the realization of the Spirit, which is synonymous with freedom. As such, freedom of an individual lies in obedience to the State.3 Marxists have used the term ‘freedom’ to signify absence of exploitative economic structure and also in terms of ‘recognition of needs’. Neo-Hegelians such as Herbert Marcuse and others have used the term to present ‘freedom’ as an attribute of consciousness of an individual as opposed to ‘false consciousness’ and ‘alienation’. In fact, Karl Marx, Herbert Marcuse, C. Wright Mills, André Gorz, Robert Blauner and others have used the term ‘alienation’ to define the relationship of an individual and various material, working and technological conditions that have hampered realization of freedom by distorting the needs of human beings.
Leave a Reply