magazines were shot down by gun activists for whom the “freedom to bear arms” was essentially believed to be a divine right. Thus, one can clearly see that in many situations, the excessive allowance made for freedom in the social spheres should actually be reduced.
On the other hand, sometimes liberation is essential in the social sphere, as unjust practices need to be eradicated. The existing order imposed upon society is so abhorrent, that greater freedom is absolutely required. The unjust segregation of African Americans from the rest of the white population in the US was the epitome of such “order”, which was, in fact, no order at all. The Negro yearning for equal rights and social parity with the white American was a freedom that had to be granted. Thankfully, it was. However, there are other social systems that similarly confi ne and restrict citizens into a rigid caste – such as that which still exists in India. The plight of the lowest caste, the “untouchables”, can be deemed even more distressing than the conditions imposed on the African Americans by the Jim Crow Laws. Indeed, with reference to these deplorable social systems that have been maintained for centuries, freedom is an urgent call that the world cannot ignore, as opposed to the order that is required of situations elsewhere.
Even in the realm of the economy, the world may need freedom in certain circumstances. The centrally-controlled and ordered Communist system that existed in the decades preceding 1990 through much of the world imposed great economic and material suffering on the citizens of those countries that subscribed to such beliefs. The per capita income and living standards of these countries largely stagnated throughout their time as communists, once the benefi ts of factor mobilisation were exhausted. The dynamism of the private sector is clearly required for improvements in economic prosperity. Only after the liberalisation of prices and the monolithic state economic planning infrastructure could the economy recover its vibrancy, which then led to improvements in the fi nancial and material state of the people.
Of course, complete freedom in economics without the order that the relevant institutions provide can also be disastrous. Indeed, this was seen in the Russian economic collapse that followed the liberalisation of its economy. The point about the Russian state default and high infl ation that resulted in a near 50% fall in average real incomes is testament that pure unbridled capitalist freedom is not the remedy to all economic ills. Instead, a more orderly restructuring of the Russian economy would have led to more desirable results. This is the path followed by the Chinese, who now have seen their per capita income rise from US$46 in 1980 to over US$10,000 in 2000. This positive trend stands in stark contrast to the Russian debacle. It is thus manifestly clear that just as with politics or social issues, whether more order or more freedom is needed crucially depends on each individual instance – one can make no generalisation.
In conclusion, one can see the competing calls for order and freedom with the context of Egypt’s Arab Spring. Egypt’s most pressing concern at the moment is to resolve the issue of political governance. To foster a pluralistic yet stable democracy, which is what the Egyptian people desire, one requires both order and freedom. One needs the latter so that the will of the Egyptian people will be adequately refl ected in Egypt’s new political system. Concurrently, one also desires the former so as to ensure that chaos or the vested interests of a few do not hijack and subvert the will of the Egyptian people. It is therefore impossible to conclude one way or the other; whether a situation requires either order or freedom is for the stakeholders at the point in time to decide. After all, it is their world.
Marker’s comments:
Very comprehensive discussion with breadth of apt substantiation. Well-informed response overall. Good.
“Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains.” Indeed, Rousseau’s emphatic opening line in his seminal work ‘The Social Contract’ makes clear the dreary totalitarian nature of life in both 18th century France and the rest of the world. Arguably, the world today is a much more liberated place; many, such as Thomas Friedman, argue that the inexorable force of globalisation has truly “fl attened” the world through rapid increases in global trade and migration. Moreover, the triumph of democratic governance over authoritarian governance in much of the world has also granted people more social, economic and political freedoms than ever. However, detractors posit that the increase in liberty, both on a global and national scale, could engender divide and deleterious consequences. They believe that greater supranational oversight on a global level and more government regulation on a national level are required to stabilise the world in an era of increasing unpredictability. While I do sympathise with their fears, I believe that having greater freedoms is ultimately a force for good and that far from being contradictory, freedom and order are not always mutually exclusive.
First, many pundits feel that in a world of increasing geopolitical complexity, it is imperative for global institutions such as the United Nations (UN), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank to have greater powers to regulate and intervene in global affairs. While a corollary of this is an infringement of countries’ national sovereignty, such pundits assert that this loss of national freedom is a small price to pay for peace and stability in the world. This argument is particularly valid in the case of rogue nations, such as Iran and North Korea, many of whom engage in clandestine illegal military trade in order to support each other both fi nancially and militarily in the face of global ostracism. Whilst the restriction of their ability to carry out military trade might constitute a violation of national sovereignty in the eyes of some, it is undeniable that such a move is necessary to prevent these rogue nations from engaging in belligerent military, possibly even nuclear, attacks on other countries. Indeed, while it has previously turned a blind eye to military trade between rogue nations in the past, the UN is now ever more vigilant in detecting and stopping such trade. In fact, just last year, the UN managed to stop a North Korean navy vessel that was carrying long-range ballistic missiles to Iran. Therefore, despite concerns about national sovereignty, it is vital for supranational institutions to snuff out the ever-present threat of rogue nations in ensuring global stability.
Secondly, on a national scale, the freedoms that people enjoy such as freedom of speech, can often be abused in such a way that endangers the well-being of a society. Consequently, governments have to enforce strict regulatory laws that deter such misuse to create a better and safer society. The right to freedom of speech is often said to triumph all other rights; however, the abuse of one’s right to free speech can engender civil strife and confl ict. For instance, in Singapore, a multicultural melting pot, the government has enacted strict laws against those who voice insensitive racial and religious sentiments. This policy stems from the government’s deep-rooted fear of ethnic and religious confl ict in a society where its different ethnic groups have not always seen eye to eye (as evidenced by the 1964 racial riots). And who could begrudge the government for doing so? Ethnic and religious differences are deeply divisive. The recent blasphemous portrayal of Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper sparked widespread anger in the Muslim world and led to the killings of many innocent Christians in Muslim countries. As such, a government should not be blinded by concerns about the infringement of freedom of speech in its bid to create a more harmonious and secure society.
However, while the above reasons in support of the need for greater order are certainly valid, there are many equally, if not more, compelling reasons to have greater freedom in our world.