08 December 2005
Individual vs. Communal Freedom
Beside the word “victory,” President Bush has used over and over again the word “freedom” in stating his goals in Iraq and the War on Terrorism. No one can disagree with him that freedom is a fundamental motivation for the political actions of all humanity. The problem is that this aspiration has very different connotations from one culture to another.
In Western societies, freedom refers to the liberty of each single individual from what he views as arbitrary or unnecessarily burdensome direction by a higher authority. Whether that authority represents an employer, an organization, or a government, it is an important part of our ethos that the individual ultimately determines whether that authority is justified in carrying such power. It is wrong to confuse individual freedom, so defined, with communal freedom that certain “traditional” societies choose because of religious, tribal, or feudal custom.
In the case of Iraq, and probably most of the Middle East, the people’s freedom to follow their own religious and tribal precepts can be obstructed by the actions of a foreign democratic invader as surely as by a domestic brutal dictator. Having liberated the Iraqi people from the one, the U.S. is paying the price, in terms of bloodshed and diverted resources, for not leaving it up to the Iraqis themselves to establish whatever political order suits them as a free society. That may not mean a society where individuals are free to do as they please within the boundaries of civility. But it does mean that the society reaches its ultimate equilibrium free of external interference like U.S. occupation.
Beside the word “victory,” President Bush has used over and over again the word “freedom” in stating his goals in Iraq and the War on Terrorism. No one can disagree with him that freedom is a fundamental motivation for the political actions of all humanity. The problem is that this aspiration has very different connotations from one culture to another.
In Western societies, freedom refers to the liberty of each single individual from what he views as arbitrary or unnecessarily burdensome direction by a higher authority. Whether that authority represents an employer, an organization, or a government, it is an important part of our ethos that the individual ultimately determines whether that authority is justified in carrying such power. It is wrong to confuse individual freedom, so defined, with communal freedom that certain “traditional” societies choose because of religious, tribal, or feudal custom.
In the case of Iraq, and probably most of the Middle East, the people’s freedom to follow their own religious and tribal precepts can be obstructed by the actions of a foreign democratic invader as surely as by a domestic brutal dictator. Having liberated the Iraqi people from the one, the U.S. is paying the price, in terms of bloodshed and diverted resources, for not leaving it up to the Iraqis themselves to establish whatever political order suits them as a free society. That may not mean a society where individuals are free to do as they please within the boundaries of civility. But it does mean that the society reaches its ultimate equilibrium free of external interference like U.S. occupation.
Comments:
Post a Comment
