Skip to main content

Freedom to do stuff vs. freedom from stuff


As our children grow up we typically give them more freedom and discretion over the activities they will pursue, and increasing freedom of choice when it comes to who they will associate with and the type of education they want. It's commonly accepted that freedom from tyranny, oppression, and control is a hallmark of a democratic society; we should be free to lead and build a life of our choosing. Leading and guiding one another to a life of freedom is a great privilege that many communities are still fighting and striving towards. 

However, when our children are young, we're a bit more directive. When I wake up my daughters in the morning, whether they get dressed, eat breakfast, and get ready for school is not up for discussion or deliberation. At first, commanding them when to put on their shoes might seem to contravene their freedom of choice. Am I restraining their liberty? Obstructing their progress as free individuals? In directing them through these activities, it is quite easy to feel and act like a dictator. 

From a different perspective, I am empowering them with the freedom to participate fully and effectively in the world around us by equipping them with basic skills and habits. The freedom from tyranny and oppression is quite different, and distinct, from the freedom to participate in society. Isaiah Berlin made this important distinction in his 1958 essay Two Concepts of Liberty. Freedom to participate with one another, and to contribute as an active community member in a manner of one's choosing, is called positive liberty. Freedom from interference is negative liberty. 

Democratic participation, as political equals, requires positive freedom. It is not enough that we are free from interference in our political lives, we must have the freedom to participate in decisions about our communities, and about our lives. This must be factored in during the design of democratic exercises: are all participants empowered and enabled to participate effectively? Do they have the tools, habits, skills, and language required? It is no use extending someone the opportunity to speak freely at a meeting, without interruption or direction, if they do not speak the same language as everyone else. Have they seen the agenda in advance? Has everyone had an opportunity to learn and understand the issues being discussed? 

It is incumbent upon community groups, public agencies, and governments to design decision-making processes that equip participants with the tools to contribute in a meaningful way. To ensure positive liberty is a regular and consistent feature in community governance, through practices such as extending each other the opportunity to control and shape the agenda (as outlined in this previous post). 

How does your community equip residents with positive liberty? How does positive liberty show up in your workplace? Or at home? 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Problem with Voting

Voting at the polls is a cornerstone of democracy today. When we think about, and understand, democratic participation, we imagine casting some kind of vote for some kind of person or issue in some kind of election.

Unfortunately, a focus on voting narrows the possibilities for democratic participation, which is really all about shared decision-making. Don't get me wrong, voting is important. It took us about 2500 years to set up voting as an actual mechanism to make decisions, and even now it's certainly not a widespread practice. The right to vote is a contested aspiration in many corners of the world, and we should support the right of each and every person to an equal voice in community decision making.

However, an exclusive focus on voting carries a significant risk. The concept of democracy is an aspiration; an aspiration to share decision-making, and to enable each other, as equals, to participate in decision-making. Decision-making cannot always be achieved with a sin…

Running for office: no experience necessary

There are moments when I hear people question the qualifications and experience of those who are running for, or hold, positions in office. Shouldn't there be some minimum, established, standard or criteria for holding a public position of power? Some minimum level of education?

The short answer is no. If we start looking to impose minimum standards or benchmarks other than: 1) residency, 2) adulthood* we've missed the whole point of democracy, and a critical part of what democracy means. A fundamental democratic principle is equality of voice, or equality of voting. Every person has decision-making power. This principle is based on the concept that not a single one of us is more qualified, or has any right, to impose decision-making or power over others, any more than they also have a right to impose decision-making or power over us.

By contrast, in other spheres of life, we want trained experts to hold some degree of decision-making power. For example, Doctors should probabl…

Why public hearings are terrible

It's a typical public hearing, and over a dozen speakers have arrived to speak for or against the proposed development. When called, each speaker heads up to the microphone and passionately relays their personal perspective on why the new development should, or should not, be permitted.

At the end of the hearing none of the speakers has changed their mind, and very few have learned anything new. Council makes their decision. Those who are aligned with the vote rejoice, while those opposed to the decision lament and decry the process as well as the decision.

A democratic exercise? Certainly doesn't feel like one. Public hearings are notorious for leaving council members exhausted, members of the public frustrated, and decisions that seldom seem connected to the proceedings themselves. This format and mechanism are partially products of our focus on democracy as accountability and equality of voice. At a public hearing, any resident can register to speak, and views are expressed…