Political, Economic, and Social Freedom
On October 15, Iraq will vote on its proposed constitution. This is seen by many as a sign of progress. Others see the continued attacks in Iraq and wonder how anyone could see “progress”. But it has me thinking about what constitutes (and what leads to) a stable and free society.
Democracy promotes political freedom. It gives people a say in the government. Democracy also tends to be more stable than other forms of government because the transition of power is usually non-violent. Because it is clear who the next leader is going to be and when they are going to take power, there is no need for people to take up arms and fight it out. However, even democracies can become unstable and collapse if there is unrest due to economic or social conditions or political corruption.
Capitalism promotes economic freedom. You can buy and sell whatever you want at whatever price the market will bear. In order for any economy to be successful, it must be flexible enough to adapt to changing demands and markets. This means the economy must have enough diversity so that if one sector fails, resources may be shifted to other, less trouble sectors.
Social freedom is the ability to participate in society without restriction. This last one is often the most difficult to achieve because it means changing more than just the law – it means changing minds.
To create a free and stable society, all three of these must be present to at least some degree. But to what degree? And in what order? If democracy comes first, will capitalism and social freedom follow? Should a secure and diversified capitalist economy be set up before the democracy to prevent the new government from collapsing under its own economic woes? Will a lack of social freedom for some groups doom a young democracy? Or should social freedom be introduced more slowly, as it was here in the United States (we didn’t start out with everyone being able to vote, after all), to prevent culture shock and a backlash against the new system? And can any freedom survive when people don’t feel secure?
I think that having any of these three freedoms can eventually lead to having more of the other freedoms. Give people the idea that they can control one aspect of their lives, and they just might get the idea that they should have control of other aspects of their lives. But what to plant can depend on where you are sewing the seeds, which means the growing pains will vary, too. The process is slower than we would like – growth takes time. Sometimes, it grows into things you might not expect. Other times, it may not grow at all. Only time will tell.
This wasn't nearly what I wanted it to be. But I think I had too many thoughts going through my head at once. These are the ones that made it on the screen.
Democracy promotes political freedom. It gives people a say in the government. Democracy also tends to be more stable than other forms of government because the transition of power is usually non-violent. Because it is clear who the next leader is going to be and when they are going to take power, there is no need for people to take up arms and fight it out. However, even democracies can become unstable and collapse if there is unrest due to economic or social conditions or political corruption.
Capitalism promotes economic freedom. You can buy and sell whatever you want at whatever price the market will bear. In order for any economy to be successful, it must be flexible enough to adapt to changing demands and markets. This means the economy must have enough diversity so that if one sector fails, resources may be shifted to other, less trouble sectors.
Social freedom is the ability to participate in society without restriction. This last one is often the most difficult to achieve because it means changing more than just the law – it means changing minds.
To create a free and stable society, all three of these must be present to at least some degree. But to what degree? And in what order? If democracy comes first, will capitalism and social freedom follow? Should a secure and diversified capitalist economy be set up before the democracy to prevent the new government from collapsing under its own economic woes? Will a lack of social freedom for some groups doom a young democracy? Or should social freedom be introduced more slowly, as it was here in the United States (we didn’t start out with everyone being able to vote, after all), to prevent culture shock and a backlash against the new system? And can any freedom survive when people don’t feel secure?
I think that having any of these three freedoms can eventually lead to having more of the other freedoms. Give people the idea that they can control one aspect of their lives, and they just might get the idea that they should have control of other aspects of their lives. But what to plant can depend on where you are sewing the seeds, which means the growing pains will vary, too. The process is slower than we would like – growth takes time. Sometimes, it grows into things you might not expect. Other times, it may not grow at all. Only time will tell.
This wasn't nearly what I wanted it to be. But I think I had too many thoughts going through my head at once. These are the ones that made it on the screen.
posted by SpakKadi at 12:00 AM
2 Comments:
I don't think that democracy tends to lead to a free market economy. It's too easy to just vote yourself other people's money and legislate controls on their activities.
There's similar issues with social freedoms as well.
However, a properly structured democracy very well could lead to both, but I suspect that they both require a government that includes strong enough property rights that you "own" yourself.
I would agree that democracy is less likely to lead to economic or social freedom than the other way around. I admit I didn't do a good job of making my point, which was that democracy alone does not a free and stable society make.
I think economic freedom can lead to social freedom which in turn can lead to democratic reforms. However, when democracy comes first, it may be diffcult to go the other way. This is my concern with touting democracy as a kind of cure-all. It may be the end goal, but it is not necessarily the first step.
Post a Comment
<< Home