Considered Liberty

Since December of last year the Middle East has been the scene of mass revolt and rebellion. Liberty has become the byword of hundreds and thousands of people rising up against the oppressive and brutal regimes which have controlled their political destinies for far too long.  The heartstrings of the United States, a nation which has tied itself to the principles of liberty and equality since it was first created, have been pulled by the pleas of the citizens of these countries.  Their political destiny seems linked to our own through the principles we avow. Their cries seem to be a more vibrant, more demanding and more desperate version of those chanted in the last election by the majority of American people: hope…change….

The regimes of Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, the Bahrain and Libya have in common a definite lack of liberty, of equality, of reason to hope and of expectation for change.  With only a slight risk of being decidedly over broad it can be said that these countries have not had governments so much as legitimized repression, brutality, and exploitation.  The political situation in which the citizens of these countries live far and away fulfills the conditions under which a people can appropriately claim the rights, described by Locke and written into the American Declaration of Independence, to rebel and revolt. No social contract made by human beings legitimately allows for the kind of repression many of the rebels have endured.  For these people to demand liberty, to demand freedom and to demand an end to repression is natural, understandable and praiseworthy.

Nonetheless, liberty is not an absolute right and it is sometimes not an unequivocal good. Pure liberty is in the interest of no one and can be the basis of no political society. Thoughtful human beings do not want freedom simply; they want rights such as the freedom of speech and association and the free exercise of religion; they desire to live without fear of violence, to pursue their dreams, and even to create a new and better political system. Liberal governments of the kind found in the United States, England, France, and Germany do not protect the absolute freedom of their citizens but their liberties: they protect a particular and limited set of rights. In securing these rights governments necessarily limit the rights of other s to act as they please, creating a balance between liberty and equality, freedom and order. Therefore when people call for liberty they should be understood to demand an end to oppression and the freedom to act in specific ways.  This the citizens of the repressed countries in Africa and the Middle East have not explicitly said. Just as the American people did in the 2010 election, they limit their cries to a demand for hope and change without defining for what they hope and what change they would support. This is a mistake.

Liberty, freedom and hope are wonderful slogans. When spoken they sound like heartfelt pleas. But they invoke great emotion and spread an irrational expectation of a better future. If a better future is to be achieved it cannot merely be hoped for and imagined; rather, its character and the means to achieve it must be rationally, thoughtfully considered. Careful planning and not fleeting emotions must prepare a people to reform their political institutions. The citizens of the Middle East rationally look for an end to repression but irrationally they direct their gaze into the future to provide it. They call for their leaders to step down but do not seem to have detailed considerations regarding what or who should take their places. From the other side of the world and a completely different perspective the United States looks on. It is not our place to challenge the rebels to clarify their plans, but we can ask appropriate questions. Instead we seem to be allowing our heart stings to determine our actions.

Recently President Obama gave a speech on the United State’s decision to actively aid in creating a no fly zone across Libya. The United States, he argued, had ‘a responsibility to act’ in the face of the violence, and brutality that Colonel Qaddafi rained down upon his own people. The United States, one of the most powerful countries in the world, committed to humanitarianism, to justice and to liberty, could not stand by.  In many ways I agree with the President’s assessment of the situation. What do principles like justice and freedom mean if they are not defended when directly attacked?  How can any country which values human life watch as citizens are murdered by their own leaders? Yet however much I share this view I must acknowledge that this perspective by itself is an irrational and insufficiently considered justification for action.. No single country can defend these principles whenever they are put into jeopardy. Not even the very powerful can prevent every instance of violence and brutality.  Even if one nation could act throughout the world to prevent brutality, prevention alone is not enough. These regimes must be replaced with something better, and liberty must be protected along with the limitations which make it worthwhile. The decision to aid in the plight of the Libyan people may be correct. However we must be aware that hope and change are not enough. They must lead to a realizable goal and a reachable future.