Democracy in the West started over two hundred years ago to save people from the immaturities of premodern times, and this process remains open-ended. At time it has been quite volatile. Such a uniquely human undertaking is inevitably going to possess weaknesses, errors and contradictions. Within democracies, non-democratic phenomena such as segregation, racism, gender inequality, colonialism, war and fascism have all existed legally. Fortunately, over the years democracies have made a number of substantial course corrections to eliminate such egregious issues and to improve the balanced application of a people-centered government.

But some holes still remain. In this section, we will take a closer look at some existing gaps and weaknesses in democracy, examine how some of those holes could gradually be repaired. We will also explore some ideas about how to evaluate the healthy functioning of a democracy in order to prevent other holes from opening up or worsening.

One of the holes is the surprisingly paradoxical nature of the concept of freedom, which on one hand is a right and the foundation of human dignity, and yet has been exploited as a tool of manipulation and used to justify extreme and socially irresponsible behaviors that do not serve the healthy development of a democracy. Let us explore this further.

The Contradictory Nature of Freedom

The ideal of ‘freedom’ seems to be inherent in the ideal of democracy. Freedom has become synonymous with the unrestricted capitalism, as well as with the ideals of the Christian Anglo-Saxon-White populations which led to their domination of Europe and America. In such wide-ranging applications, freedom has not been clearly or concisely defined or managed, and in fact is often the source of deep paradoxes and confusion in democracies.

Freedom and its lack, have lived side by side in democracies – an uncomfortable coexistence between democracy and autocracy. And here is where the contradiction arises: As ‘freedom’ was progressively considered to be an inviolable absolute, it was used to justify laws that were clearly morally wrong, such as the freedom to own slaves, the freedom to impose segregation, the freedom to exclude women, the freedom to exploit and damage nature, the freedom to expropriate and colonize other lands. Freedom to focus on the self-interest than the interest of others – putting self above community.

It is clear that talk of ‘freedom’ as an ideal is often used as an uncontestable concept by clever politicians and party or group leaders to manipulate their naïve audiences. When freedom is presented as an absolute right and when any restriction of freedom is presented as a heretical act, people can be easily incited by suggestions that their freedoms are being limited in any way, no matter how rational the reason. The people in democracies are then caught between an authentic freedom and an ignorance of the responsibility that comes with freedom. As Jefferson suitably put it: “Citizens may not sustain both ignorance and freedom.” (Published in a letter dated 1816). Kant in his essay of Was ist Aufklärung? (1784) considered an Enlightenment attitude to represent maturity and freedom, to think for oneself and not letting others to think for you. Kant saw a correlation between the power of reasoning and freedom, and for him an un-Enlightenment attitude represented a self-inflicted immaturity without guidance. The authority of reason in the Enlightenment was to take a central role in promoting public freedom and scientific progress not in matters of faith, belief in God or moral beliefs.

Another dilemma of freedom is when created laws give more power to one group or another, prioritizing the freedoms of one group over another. In other words, the paradox is when freedom is used to reduce the freedom of others, an oxymoron in democracy. Freedom is not a haphazard jargon that we can continually manipulate and fashion after the interests of certain individuals or groups. It is a right at the disposal of the whole community requiring the responsibility of making reasonable choices that do not violate the freedom of other members of the community, including the rights and freedom of other countries. We may not be consciously aware of the freedoms in our everyday lives and may often take it for granted, but knowing that it exists and that one is free to choose one’s destiny while living with respect for others emanates dignity in itself.

There are three essential misconceptions about ‘freedom’ that we need to grapple with and explore:

Misconception #1: Freedom Is Unlimited

Because freedom echoes a democratic philosophy, anyone suggesting limitations to freedom immediately comes across as anti-democratic and even medieval. But in fact, the first challenge with freedom is its subjectivity and any definition based on the individual is enormously challenging to agree on how much freedom should be applied personally. Human desires might be unlimited, but in reality, possibilities are limited. Limits to freedom are often meant to prevent damage, not to exert control. In an obvious example, a law requiring wearing a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet is intended to protect the wearer, not to control her personal freedom. It is also the ranking of priorities: the law is made on the basis that the value of life is greater than the value of personal comfort.

Sometimes personal wishes supersede the ideals of collective freedom. Tension consequently arises between individual freedom and collective freedom. Collective freedom can also be viewed as having the goal of collective wellbeing. For example, if the personal freedom of religion is perceived as being unlimited and one imposes one’s opinion or religion on another, it becomes damaging to others. If one feels free to cut trees or kill animals, the environment is damaged. There should be limits on such individual freedoms because they result in damage to the wellbeing of others in the whole. These are of course real examples in existing democracies: missionaries who impose religion on others, and industrialists who rampantly cut trees and pollute the environment, putting their own personal freedoms ahead of the wellbeing of others

There is no such thing as “unlimited freedom.” The human body has limits; nature and natural resources have their limits. Limits are imposed by the finite resources of nature; the planet is round, not flat and endless. Yet the hesitancy to acknowledge such real limits and instead embrace a vision of ‘unlimited freedom to use resources’ and the ideal of ‘unlimited economic growth’ is resulting in the ecological crises at hand today. Thus, “limitations to freedom” does not mean no freedom – it means freedom within the permissible boundaries and respect for the interests of all. Freedom comes with responsibility.

Misconception #2:  Freedom and Greed Can Live Side by Side

The second contradiction of freedom in democracy has been the perversion and misuse of freedom, or “over-freedom.” For example, an enormous freedom that has been promoted in liberal democracies is the freedom of maximum profit-making and owning as far as one’s greed go. The freedom to make as much money and own as much property as one would like prioritizes individual and financial freedom over the common good. This type of freedom has been made legal, and oligarchs and the wealthy are the exclusive beneficiaries of this freedom, not the poor.

It is clear that when companies have nearly unlimited ‘freedom’ to strive for maximum profits, when there is no limit placed what companies do to increase their profits, then detrimental effects on workers’ lives and ecological systems ensue.  The deceptive façade of economic freedom is highly paradoxical and damaging when a profiteering mentality clashes with the wellbeing of individuals in the society as well as the environment. And even though poverty and inequality are seen as global issues most often associated with developing countries, the systematic promotion of unlimited financial freedom has also led some Western democratic societies as well into sharp inequalities, poverty and despair. Are these two freedoms of equal value: the freedom to be ridiculously wealthy and the freedom to be desperately poor? What does it mean when a society sees no relationship or conflict between those two freedoms?

Misconception #3: The Reason for Freedom is to Desire More

The third challenging aspect of freedom is the deceptively simple question of “What is the purpose of freedom?” According to some, the goal of freedom is to have the personal space to fulfill one’s desires and habits. But that is an impulsive freedom which only serves gratification. For example, one is free to indulge in the desire to damage the freedom of others, and to threaten the mental and social wellbeing of other members of the community. The desire to write manipulating news, or to use social media for bending public opinion to one’s favor are not freedoms to serve a higher purpose. The freedom to own a gun, the freedom to have enormous quantities of money and property, to exploit and pollute nature, or to hunt animals for pleasure are impulsive freedoms that are nothing but damaging to the collective wellbeing. Such wild over-freedom leads to disorder, inequality and grievance. The incoming impulses of desire to our brain can enslave us to the concept of freedom: what we WANT takes priority over all.

Instead, a long-lasting and mature freedom is not impulsive and self-centered, but rather emanates from wisdom and farsightedness – considers the interest of others not just oneself and one’s family.

Perhaps one could say that the true comprehensive goal of freedom in a democracy means having the privilege of free thought and lifestyle while at the same time conducting oneself with a sense of responsibility towards the other members of the society, towards nature, towards protecting the wellbeing of all forms of life, towards peace and order for everyone. The sanity of freedom is when it serves one and all: adults and children, men and women, educated and uneducated, earth and sky.

Solutions

For a meaningful definition and application of freedom in a democracy, we need experts from many layers of society: lawyers, judges, representatives from minority groups, pedagogists, environmentalists including animal rights activists, economists, LGBTQ individuals, labor unions and other civil activists who would strive to restore freedom for all to give their perspectives. Together, these experts can address where freedom should apply, and where boundaries and limits should apply, and establish a balanced approach. A one-sided or subjective version of freedom cannot continue to be the only source of freedom.

In some of the most damaging scenarios, the misapplication of the idea of ‘freedom’ in a democracy has allowed wrong things become legal, and right things to become illegal. There was once the ‘freedom’ to make segregation legal but it was morally wrong, such as in the US and also in South Africa. One is ‘free’ to be poor and uninsured – it is perfectly legal – but this callous and cold freedom is degrading for a family and a society. And the rights and freedoms of one’s own body are infringed upon wrongly when abortion or homosexuality are declared illegal, as is the case in many societies today, using laws to infringe on the rights and freedoms of women and social minorities. There was also a time when certain states in the US had the legal ‘freedom’ to restrict voting until just fifty-seven years ago with the Voting Rights of 1965 (Civil Rights Act was in 1964) Blacks universally acquired the true and encumbered right to vote – a pace that pushed American democracy one step forward. Thus, the law can also be used to wrong such rights, and make sure the right freedoms are legal.

Summary

The gaping hole is when the freedom of the individual and corporations often take precedence over the collective good, without taking into account the restorative and collective qualities of freedom being applied equally to all. Such an incomplete treatment of freedom in the first Enlightenment meant that the rights of women, racial justice, and ecological protection were not equally upheld. As we have seen, with the rhetoric of economic freedom, democracies have historically allowed unlimited capital-grabbing. The distorted understanding of freedom gave the greedy industrialists the right to turn nature into a commodity and a source of income for themselves. ‘Darwinian Freedom,’ means that poor members of a population have the perverse ‘freedom’ to be poor and sick, without access to supportive resources. This has left a scar on the face of democracy.

In the long run, the Second Enlightenment cannot afford such cracks and holes in implementing democracy. Freedom in the new era will have to suit the individuals, to protect nature and its animals, and to empower the weak and the strong in the society to enjoy the same privileges. Freedom is not an exclusive right but an inclusive one; it cannot exist for some as a luxury while others constantly struggle for food and shelter. Freedom ultimately cannot contradict and betray itself or be self-defeating, giving some groups the ‘freedom’ to overpower or consume more than their share. In the end, if the old version of freedom cannot actualize our dreams and plans for the new era ahead of us.