Thesis statement
The world has been undergoing so many changes in the political, religious, and economic arena. Different countries have colonized many countries. Within countries that have different races, religions, and beliefs, not all people have been given equal rights. Some of the people rose to fight against t the oppression they felt was prevailing in the society.
Most of the initiators of the liberalization strugglers never took part in the struggle but left behind the legacy that was followed by others to fight for the struggle of liberalization.
This essay summarizes some of the thinkers who laid the foundation for the struggle for liberalization in most states.
Introduction
According to Bobbio (2005, pp1), liberal-democratic and democratic-liberal are two interdependent terms. In liberalism, a state is conceived to have limited powers and functions while in democracy, the power of the state lies in the majority and not in few individuals. In liberal states, participation in government functions is restricted and limited to a few individuals, who happen to be wealthy. Contrary, in a democratic state, such kinds of restrictions are not there.
Most ancient fighters of liberalization fought for the limited powers that an individual had, and more importantly, the power should be distributed to all. This liberty idea was given by Benjamin Constant (1767 – 1830). According to Bobbio (2005 pp2), Constant’s idea was that:
The ancients aimed at a distribution of power among all the citizens of a given state, and they referred to this as freedom. For the moderns, the goal is security in their private possessions. For them, liberty refers to the guarantees of these possessions afforded by their institutions.
From this point of view, the ancient and the modern fighters of liberalization, the two aims were incompatible. Hence the conclusion for Constant was that the modern kind of liberty is where people have to reside in peace and enjoy their private independence, unlike in the ancient where liberty was to fight for equal distribution of power.
Thus, liberalism deals with ensuring the limitation of powers and function of the state. In this case, persons will be at liberty if they can be able to check the limitations of the role of the state, and on the other hand, the state can uphold the rights of an individual.
According to Powell (N.d), William Penn was among the first heroes to fight for liberty. When there was war between the Catholics, protestants, Quakers, and the Jews, it was Penn who developed the sanctuary in America that protected the freedom of conscience. Penn fought for religious tolerance among all the religions but the dark side was that he owned slaves in the United States.
Rousseau’s Liberty Ideas
Rousseau’s famous saying was that “a man is born free but everywhere in chains.” Rousseau’s idea dealt with social contracts. His idea was that the government and the ruled were in mutual contract. This implies that the governed only agree to this contract so that their happiness, rights, and property can be protected. In case the government does not provide what the governed expected, then this means the contract has been broken and the governed will be forced to look for independence. This idea of Rousseau (discourse on Inequality) has led to many modern countries fighting for their country’s independence.
In his argument, Rousseau felt that civilization had corrupted human beings. This was largely on moral corruption, such that people felt that whenever there was progress such as urbanization, science & technology, it caused degradation of humanity. Civilization had made humans substitute compassionate with such characters as cruelty, being selfish, and bloodthirsty. Therefore, in essence, civilization had robbed human beings of their natural freedom. Those who were not civilized lived happily and valued the kind of lives they lived, while the civilized could not live on their opinions but the opinion of others.
According to Rousseau, people entered into the social contract because they felt more secure when ruled by a formal government that ensured their happiness and protection of property. This was more beneficial than when every person is for himself or herself system of governance, which encouraged anarchy in the society. But this kind of contract between the governed and the government has not always been upheld. The most powerful and wealthy people have greatly used means that can benefit them and bring about inequality in society. Therefore, the government seems to protect the welfare of the few and neglects the rights of the majority. This kind of government operation makes the people to revolt against it and fight for their liberty and freedom.
To Rousseau, if the contract of the governed and the government is followed to the latter, there is no way people can revolt but in any breach of the contract, people should revolt and fight for their rights. According to him, every person is born with rights that are supposed to be observed. And if a person does not have such rights, it implies that there must be a person who has to be asked to give those rights.
Mill’s Liberty ideas
Mill’s ideas talked about the tyranny of the government, which has to be controlled by the liberty of the citizens. Therefore the citizens have to control the powers of the government or else the government may misuse the powers as a dangerous weapon against the people. Mill’s first idea of how to check the powers of the government is by having a constitution, and the necessary rights should belong to the citizens.
In his argument, Mill feels that human beings can have a “ruler” as long as such ruler will guarantee the rule against tyranny. With development, it emerged that democracy development eluded the fear of tyrannies over self. But the idea of democracy can only seem to function to the majority in the society. This is because the majority at times manipulates the rights of the minority despite the protest from the minority. This is described as the tyranny of the majority. According to Mill, the tyranny of the majority is worse than the tyranny of a ruler. This is because such tyranny goes beyond political functions. In such a society, the opinions of the majority are not necessarily right. It will only show their preference, which might turn out to be wrong. Therefore to Mill, the only reason that power can be exercised over a civilized individual is to control such person hurting others.
If people are hurt, then their sovereignty over self is impaired. This is because sovereignty over the self is exercised either through action or judgment. The exceptions that Mill gives about the sovereign over self are children and other people who cannot take care of themselves. He believed that such people can even hurt themselves unintentionally, hence they cannot exercise sovereignty over themselves. Furthermore, to Mill, one should accept despotism over barbarians if such is for their betterment. To him, such people cannot be sovereign over self since they are of non-age.
The work and ideas of Fanon can be recognized as a person who brought about the armed revolution in the third world. Fanon felt that the idea of racism had made people especially the blacks look inferior. Therefore, when a person is made inferior, it is enslaving that person. The persons colonized should fight for their liberty. But to Fanon, if the fight does not bear fruits when carried out in a manner that does not pose a challenge to the colonialists then Fanon preferred that the only hope for liberalization for the colonized be through white liberty and white justice.
It has been argued most by people seeking liberty that they cannot find liberty without pain. Unless people have found the liberty they are fighting for, they will never stop fighting for it. Therefore, it is either they are given liberty or death.
The most common thing about Roseau and Mill’s ideas was that every person had the right to be obeyed by every other individual and the government without any form of discrimination.
The differences come in the way they do express their opinions, Rousseau feels that every person is born a freeman and has rights that have to be observed. To Mill, people like the children and barbarians seem that they cannot have sovereignty over themselves.
Rousseau also felt that civilization has not been a good idea in bringing about liberty. This is because he feels that civilized people have left their way of thinking instead their thinking is controlled by others. This is also an idea posted by Thucydides about abandoning one’s individualism. To Mill, civilization brings about good governance.
References
Bobbio N. Liberalism and Democracy, 1SBN 1844670627,Verso, 2005.
Daniels A. The New Criterion; Frantz Fanon; the platonic form of human resentment, 2001. Web.
Hooker R. The European Enlightenment, Jean Jacque Rousseau,(1999). Web.
Mill, S.J. On Liberty, (Digitalized 2006), Published 1859,Oxford University press.
Powell J. William Penn, America’s First Great Champion for Liberty and peace. 2007.