Surveying Present-Day Freedom

By: Stephen K. Ainsah-Mensah

Freedom is one of the most important things that affect human lives in myriad ways particularly at the level of self-development. A person’s freedom to think, feel and do things - either alone or with others - has effects on his/her life and the society in general, in whichever form. The incidence of the effect depends on the gravity of the acts. The problem with freedom is that the term has often been misinterpreted. When a term is misinterpreted, adherents of the term naturally go on to win converts by using arguments largely based on force, not on reason. The more converts are won, the more the application of the term to personal and collective life brings about more problems than solutions. I believe that a term that is applied to human life has to be more realistic than abstract. An overly abstract term can be hijacked by dominant forces, given misleading interpretations and foisted on innocent people without allowing the chance to assess the logical and practical implications of the term. Innocent people who are won over may go on to commit misdeeds as if their minds have been held captives. Such has partly been the misuse of the popular term, freedom.

Indeed, we require freedom in order to fully utilize our respective mental, emotional and perceptual experiences for outcomes we care to bring about; but what is “freedom”? Before defining this term in its usual general fashion, I would like to say that different patterns of life get much of their nurturing from the way freedom is exhibited to each individual; so the availability and use of freedom cannot be similar with each individual. The concept of freedom ought to take account of this fact.

Now, a standard definition of freedom is that freedom is the ability - and, of course, the right - to do the things one thinks of doing and can actually do them without being restrained by external human forces. In doing these things, one has coordinated emotionalized thoughts with acts. The doer of acts has to be reasonable and do the acts in ways that will not hurt others. Acts that prove to be entirely in accord with what the doer expected confirm the authentic freedom of the doer. Here, a qualification has to be made. A crazy man has the freedom to do what is instigated by his emotionalized thoughts. In so far as his thoughts are not considered to be in a rational framework, he needs to be restrained by the appropriate instruments of the society; if not, he could bring about harm.

What is unclear about the abstract definition of freedom is that it stays silent with regard to the practical causes and consequences of freedom on the individual and its accompanying effects on the society. Besides, it does not stipulate the precise limits of the restraining powers of authorities who exemplify - or are made to exemplify - the spirit of freedom and defend it. Freedom here does not, for example, state why and how some individuals have more freedom to exercise their wishes than others in the social, political and economic domains. For example, Mr. Q has much more ability to say and do what he wants with people in politics, in business, in the media and in many other fields compared to Mrs. P. This entails Mr. Q has much more freedom than Mrs. P. He has much more freedom by virtue of his power to do more things than Mrs. P. It would, therefore, appear that power and freedom are directly connected.

The sense of freedom that has often been equated with democracy is far more ambiguous than it may, at first sight, look. A government of the people that democracy stipulates cannot, in practice, be a government of all the people. Government representatives are elected or nominated by eligible voters or individuals to cater to the needs and aspirations of all the people. As much as there are some people who disapprove of the government or are ignorant about the functions and intentions of the potential and actual government, their freedom in relation to the government is unfounded. What makes the democratic system even more contestable is that the freedom to choose the government you like may come true or may not come true. Since your freedom to choose did not come true, your initial freedom to choose did not generate the desired practical consequence. Unrealizable freedom of this nature is not really authentic freedom and may merely be claimed to be restricted freedom. But restricted freedom is not what the general definition of freedom tends to stipulate. Restricted freedom is not an ideal definition of freedom; for the ability to do what one wants also means what one wants ought to generate the outcome that is consistent with what was done. In effect, you want to do X. because you are convinced that doing X will bring about the desired consequence K. You had the freedom to do X, but the consequence K was missed. One could say that under this condition, the cause and consequence of your freedom was uncoordinated, and the freedom so cherished by you in this particular instance was rendered incomplete or restricted.

Take the case of a woman who exploits the law of the society that claims that one is free to join any association provided the association does not harm members or non-members or threaten in any way the safety of the society. Her wish is to join the Catholic Church and sing, through that, the praises of God. She succeeds in doing so - and entirely. This will appropriately qualify as authentic freedom unlike the restricted freedom that preceded this example.

Much of the ambiguity about the concept of freedom is not just about individual self-determination but about how the structure of individual thoughts, emotions and acts are shaped by the scope of freedom. Consider a man who has been lodged in a small community all his entire life without any travel and has not got the chance to mingle with and experience how life is with different people from different environments and cultures. Apart from this, he hardly reads about a wide range of social, political and economic matters. True, this man is free to think, feel and do whatever he likes in line with the spirit of freedom. Since his range of understanding about societal affairs is woefully limited, his freedom to make viable choices regarding what goes on is restricted. In fact, his choices about crucial matters are likely to be capricious. Such kinds of people usually resist change and, thus, do not stand as fair representations of the concept and practice of genuine freedom.

One often hears - or must have heard - of the paradoxical claim that system C, a system that mirrors the political and economic system, is the only one suitable for the culture at stake. But this is an indication that what holds as freedom has here not been grasped or has been thrown aside. For any system is possible of execution provided it does not infringe upon individual freedoms as well as destabilize on end the cultural temperament of the society. After all, this is what and how trial, error, correction of error, and systematic progress is about - and does occur. Tyrannical thinking - that is, thinking undemocratically without giving room for rational compromises - is the cause of insular resistance to untried but bold systems that could liberate a society from the pain, the drawbacks of archaic, counterproductive practices. So, one must get it clear. We are free to think, feel, and do whatever we like according to the accepted rules, norms of the society; but, then, the natural flow of freedom is restricted by the sheer lack of reasonable knowledge that could free a person from the shackles of ignorance. All too often, this kind of ignorance persists, not because one does not have the opportunity to know but because one has made it a duty not to know.

It need to be stated further that the negative freedom to refuse to know when the positive freedom of knowing will amplify one’s range of freedom constitutes a setback, a real problem for individual freedom; and it may be necessary for authorities to see to it that such people do not lapse into untold ignorance by helping them, through the appropriate institutions, to attain genuine freedom.

I am convinced that there is one element of freedom that surpasses all others in terms of relative importance; it is what may ordinarily be termed economic freedom. The ability to get for oneself things essential to sustain life and develop one’s wellbeing in a manner that one wants is an economic issue. If these things are satisfied, they set in motion a train of other kinds of freedom that are non-economic. A well-to-do or a moderately well-to-do person has the freedom to eat most of the things he/she wants, move about to different places fairly easily, speak readily with confidence, interact enthusiastically with all sorts of people, seek to augment his knowledge through further education, and so on. Suppose K, a woman, cannot afford the basic requirements of life such as food, clothing, shelter, and transportation to essential places - places that can relieve her of bitter boredom and the dangers of prolonged seclusion - then there is no need to believe that K is free. In principle, she is free to do whatever she likes within the framework of rationality, but since, in practice, she cannot do these things, she is imprisoned in her thoughts, her feelings and actions. In fact, her emotionalized thoughts and acts are truncated against her wishes. It can be confidently asserted that the function-able scope of any person’s freedom depends largely on the economic index except for those few who have been swayed by the charm of godliness to prefer spiritualism to materialism. K’s plight epitomizes this point.

A society must resist the push for a kind of freedom that just insist that one is free if one is unrestrained in one’s desire to do whatever safe things one wants to do. As we have seen, this concept of freedom is abstract and ambiguous. It does not show the workings of freedom in connection with individual self-determination, nor does it show what role authorities have to play in fostering freedom for the betterment of a people. Today’s comprehension and practice of freedom is not sustainable if it obstructs the self-determination of so many people, a condition which must have arisen from the inadequacies of the prevailing economic system. To say that one is free to do as many things as one wants because one is economically secure makes much more sense than saying that one is free to do whatever one wants because the society sanctions this kind of freedom. If there is such a thing as hinge freedom, then it should be likened to economic freedom. It is to the hinge of economic freedom that other kinds of freedom can turn and advance.

I believe that the game of democracy is not fixed within specific rules. Whenever there is the need to change an economic arrangement in order to revitalize self and collective determination of a people, democracy likewise changes its complexion. The modern notion of freedom is allied to democracy; yet the freedom of the people fails to enliven democracy unless as many as possible of the people have the kind of economic freedom that is able to give them the confidence to practice freedom with a pronounced sense of dignity and purpose. I think, moreover, that a reasonable amount of discipline is necessary for a people to serve a society with patriotism and, at the same time, help to beef up the sense of duty so vital for social and economic advancement. With the realization of these goals, economic freedom stands a great chance of reinforcing the other forms of freedom.