|
International Journal of Political
Science and Development
Vol. 2(2), pp. 12
–14,
February, 2014
DOI: 10.14662/IJPSD2014.013
ISSN: 2360-784X
Commentary
A
Commentary on ‘Liberty and Security’ by‘Conor Gearty’
Dayyab Gillani
Centre for
the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence School of International
Relation University of St Andrews
E-mail:
sdag@st-andrews.ac.uk
Accepted 22
February 2014
At the turn of
the seventeenth century, the egalitarian impulse driven by the age
of enlightenment induced the democratic shift in the Western world.
This egalitarian whim was, at least in principle, rooted in the
ideals of liberty and security for all. Despite the uncertainty over
the exact meaning of liberty and security, they are universally
acknowledged as “positive forces” fundamental to democracy.
This book appraises liberty and security at the pre, past and
post-democratic levels. The pre-democratic era was characterized by
monarchial, authoritarian and totalitarian states, in which liberty
and security was openly and characteristically for a “select few”,
the elite of the society. The turn of the seventeenth century
witnessed the rise of democracy, which primarily emerged to
challenge this pre-democratic selective arrangement as ideas of
liberty and security for everyone were advanced. The post-democratic
era, or as the author calls it ‘neo-democracy’ (p. 4) refers to the
recent changes in democratic practices with various pre-democratic
facets silently crawling their way back in and finding popular
acceptance.
Where in the pre-democratic era, liberty and security were openly
and explicitly for a select few, in the neo-democratic era they
covertly serve the same purpose under the guise of universalism. It
is this recent post-democratic transition or the neo-democratic
turn, which is at the heart of discussion in this book.
A fundamental contribution of this book is to show how and why this
transition to neo-democracy (where universalism of liberty and
security has been compromised) happened. It traces the origins of
liberty to the English civil wars of the seventeenth century that
eventually paved the way for democracy in England and from here to
the rest of the world.
The book points out how the ideas of ‘levellers’, a political group
that emphasized on a system of representative, responsible,
accountable and democratic government (p. 10) initially prevailed
over the Hobbesian absolutist philosophy (although their success was
limited). This is a very interesting, not to mention, intriguing
highlight. It explains the break from the pre-democratic despotic
arrangement as liberty and security were realized to be universal
values, which should be equally available to all.
With the rise of the democratic age, it appeared as if the
egalitarian dream was finally coming true. However, this transition
to democracy soon proved to be incomplete and imperfect. This is
because, as Gearty brilliantly points out, the democratic ideals of
universal liberty and security were never fully materialized. These
ideas were not ‘forged afresh’ but were rather grafted along a
‘pre-existing society that had been designed for the few’ (p. 4),
‘on an earlier unjust status quo’ (p. 14). The democratic society
was rather constructed ‘as a kind of compromise between power and
people’ (p. 18). The elite and the stakeholders allowed only for a
‘change from within rather than in opposition to existing
structures’ (p. 16).Therefore, despite the apparent success of the
Levellers, we find that it was eventually Hobbes who emerged
triumphant, because although what the Levellers emphasized remains
true in theory, even in modern day, it is essentially the Hobbesian
philosophy that exists in practice.
Thomas Hobbes was an imperialist who advocated for absolute
sovereign authority. His ideas of liberty and security for all were
designed in way to accommodate complete obedience of the leviathan
(the state). His theories mainly argued that the liberty of the
individual could be smashed if Leviathan judges such actions to be
essential for the safety of the state (p. 19). Hobbes’s triumph over
the Levellers explains the disparity between the theory of universal
liberty and its selective practice. This truly is a startling and a
disturbing revelation.
The book then looks at the recent developments and the contemporary
world order. An examination of the recent and the current political
developments reveals that the modern world is more in line with the
Hobbesian philosophy than with the Levellers ideology. The roles of
United Nations, US and Britain- the self-proclaimed custodians of
universal liberty and security, are discussed and analyzed in
detail.
Gearty particularly focuses on their roles in the aftermath of the
September 11 attacks. The UN, which is regarded as the ‘citadel of
liberty and security’ (p. 46), the ‘epitome of the drive to
universalism’ (p. 32), by its nature and composition demonstrates
Hobbesian ideals at work. It is not the General Assembly (where
principles of universality are applied) but rather the Security
Council (a group of selected few) that possesses real power. In
practice, there is nothing democratic about UN’s decision-making
process, yet in theory it is a collective body of all countries.
The second half of the twentieth century witnessed a mushroom growth
of democracies all across the globe. Most of these post-colonial and
post-totalitarian countries that were already ‘insecure in their
move towards true democratic culture’ (p. 55) have benefited
immensely from the UN counter-terrorism initiative. Where all such
regimes were struggling to make a transition to real democracy, the
Western war on terrorism, without any definition of terrorism,
extended them the opportunity to make only a partial transition
through undermining the fundamentals of democracy; rule of law and
human rights.
Hence, the new democracies, instead of striving for real democratic
values have started evolving into neo-democracies, where democratic
ideals are reserved for a select few and the liberties of others are
frequently trampled for the formers sake. ‘The movement is not only
that of the new democracies towards neo-democracy’ the old
democracies are also in line with them. Together ‘they seem to be
meeting in the middle with the UN’ (p. 71).
The numerous human rights violation witnessed throughout the world
as a consequence of counter-terrorism policies prompted the UN and
various countries to opt for ‘reform’ (instead of abolition of such
practices). Intricate legal and official processes have been
constructed to ‘give a greater sense of fairness’ (p. 45).
Paradoxically all such so-called improvements and changes have
further entrenched the ‘defective whole more deeply in law and
culture, making the previously unthinkable part of the new normal’
(p. 85). This reflects the shift to neo-democracy- formulating
policies and procedures with the appearance of universal freedom and
concern for human rights but in reality possessing very little of
such substance. Thus, ‘instead of openly rejecting the principles of
democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights’ (p. 92),
they incorporate these values in theory but fail to follow them in
practice. These double standards are hallmarks of neo-democracy.
The book uncovers the harsh reality that those who enjoy liberty and
security in theory and practice continue to tread on the liberty and
security of others, yet at the same time they are able to somehow
‘persuade themselves to believe that the liberty and security, which
they enjoy are universals available to all’ (p. 111). It is this
state of cognitive dissonance which the author sees as a defining
feature of neo-democracy. Gearty points out that ‘if neo-democracy
was to be summed up in a single phrase, it would be collective
self-deception’ (p. 112). The US drone attacks in the tribal areas
of Pakistan continuously undermine the country’s sovereignty and
regularly violate human rights and liberty of the concerned
population. Yet, majority of the American public chooses to remain
silent about it as their government assures them that these security
measures are necessary for their liberty. As Gearty points out that
their liberty is not ours and our security, therefore, must trump
their freedom every time (p. 40).
An examination of the contemporary global order particularly in the
light of global war on terrorism reveals an upsetting return to
Hobbesian ideals- where the sanctity of state is more important than
the liberty and security of individuals and anything that challenges
the state or the status quo must be crushed (p. 25-26). Legislating
on terrorism without any definition shows that the phenomenon being
fought is not even understood and much of what states claim to be
terrorism are merely oppositions that question or challenge their
authority. This Hobbesian attitude has, through the ages,
consistently undermined any kind of radical political speech and
revolutionary ideas, which when seen through the Hobbesian lens,
were activities that threatened the state.
The Marxist, fascist and other revolutionary ideas that are much
loathed today have been constructed and projected by neo-democracies
as ‘evils’ in the society because they challenge or simply question
the existing status quo. The democratic ideals have thus been
distorted in a way to reject and suppress anything that challenges
the state. The majority of the population in the modern democracies
simply does not care about this, as long as it is not them who are
threatened by it (p. 80).
It is time we acknowledge that democracy and what it actually
entails is not what the state dictates or projects. Various
revolutionary ideas that seek to redress social inequalities in a
way that improves human rights situation and extends liberty to all
are much closer to real democratic ideals. Neo-Marxism, for
instance, aims to address the shortcomings of the original Marxist
ideology and possesses great emancipatory potential for redressing
social inequalities. But due to the stigma attached to Marxism and
all ideologies that even question the existing status quo, all such
revolutionary ideas are downgraded, viewed with skepticism and
projected as threats to democratic ideals of universal liberty and
security.
This book is an
eye opener for us, the select few, the privileged ones, who benefit
from liberty and security and incredibly assume these to be
universal values enjoyed by all. It reminds us of what democracy
really stands for, why it was strived for in the first place- before
the Hobbesian ideals become further entrenched and neo-democracy or
collective self-deception becomes the ‘new normal’ and the real
meaning of democracy as envisioned by the Levellers is lost forever.
FULL TEXT PDF
|
