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

Why democracy doesn't always require a majority

With the recent referendum in BC on electoral reform, which resulted in not only a defeat at the polls but also an abysmal voter turnout at 42.6% of eligible votes, there have been some renewed calls for policy decisions to be reviewed by a random assortment of voters through something like a Citizens' Assembly. A citizen's assembly would be an alternative, or a complement, to a public vote on a matter of public policy such as electoral reform; rather than putting the matter directly to the public, a random group of citizens would be selected and convened to give their opinion.

Further, over the course of the referendum, other important questions were raised about the process itself: what's a sufficient voter turnout to inform a policy decision? Shouldn't the ballot include the specific details of the voting system being proposed?

All of these questions serve as an important reminder of why democracy entails much more than showing up at a poll booth to submit a vote. A…

Accountability: getting information about public things...to the public

When it comes to democracy one term that gets floated around often is the notion of accountability. But what does accountability actually mean? What does it look like?

Further, in the context of government bodies, elected representatives, and the myriad different organizations that provide civil services in our communities, how does accountability happen? And what's required for a community institution to be able to say it is accountable?

The answer is different, for different institutions. For example, we often focus on the accountability of elected officials and government representatives. But what about Crown corporations, or state companies? In Canada, Crown corporations are publicly held entities that provide a public service, but that are not directly managed or overseen by any elected official. The first federal Crown Corporation was the Canadian National Railway, established in 1922, and there are now a diverse array of publicly owned autonomous public entities in diverse s…

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…