When freedom comes first

When freedom comes first by Sauvik Chakraverti 

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 The New Indian Express 

Today, democracy is the 'holy cow', but as a political arrangement it must ultimately rest on a 'political culture'. Where this culture is illiberal and undemocratic, western-style democracy can never thrive. This is the story of Pakistan and Nepal. Within India too, we are now perilously close to a situation in which none of the established 'political parties' – all of whom resemble criminal tribes because of their perverted political culture – can single-handedly form a constitutional government, not only at the centre, but also in states like Karnataka.  

As with Pharaohs and Caesars, no political arrangement in human history has lasted indefinitely. Monarchs have been beheaded in Europe and the new arrangements have been subject to constant revision, as they still are. Tyrants often took over the city-states of ancient Greece, and not all tyrants were unscrupulous. 

Today, democracy is the 'holy cow', but as a political arrangement it must ultimately rest on a ‘political culture’. Where this culture is illiberal and undemocratic, western-style democracy can never thrive. This is the story of Pakistan and Nepal. Within India too, we are now perilously close to a situation in which none of the established ‘political parties’ — all of whom resemble criminal tribes because of their perverted political culture —can single-handedly form a constitutional government, not only at the Centre, but also in states like Karnataka. Our socialist democratic state is in crisis. 

The doctrines of classical liberalism prescribe ‘limited government’. To the liberals of the 17th and 18th centuries, universal adult suffrage was a dangerous pipe dream of radical egalitarians. What mattered most to liberals was not how the government is formed, but what the government does. Indeed, their primary concern was with what the government is not allowed to do by constitutional law. Only under such ‘limited government’ could the people be free as also secure in their properties. This was the ideal. And all efforts were thus directed towards limiting the powers of monarchs. Liberals of those days would be horrified at the unlimited powers of modern parliaments and it is only now that some of us are beginning to realise that, just as monarchs were ‘limited’ in those days, so too must parliaments be limited today. 

In other words, the classical liberal is an enemy of all unlimited government, be that of a king, a dictator or a popular assembly. This is because, to the classical liberal, the highest political value is Liberty. There was Liberty in Hong Kong under British rule and this Libertyhas been preserved after the colony was transferred to the Chinese communists under a ‘one country, two systems’ policy. There is Liberty in Singapore under one-party authoritarianism. There is Liberty in the Emirates of the Gulf. It is this Liberty that the classical liberal emphasises, irrespective of the exact political arrangement. Any government that preserves Liberty is good government. Any government that destroysLiberty is bad government — a tyranny that must be toppled. 

In socialist democratic India, Liberty is dead. The Economic Freedom of the World Index finds us ‘economically repressed’. Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland top the list. We cannot trade with foreigners freely, we cannot change money freely, we cannot freely open businesses, our properties are insecure, we cannot grow, sell or smoke ganja — something even the Brits did not outlaw. Toddy, mahua, apong — all are illegal, wasting traditional ‘knowledge’ that could take on Mexican tequila. No Indian can open a bar freely, and heaven help them if some nautch-girls were to perform therein! The Brits patronised nautch-girls, and a Mughal prince even fell in love with one. 

So let us examine the ‘liberal’ credentials of those Indians who champion democracy inPakistan and Nepal. Nepal under a limited monarch can surely have a ‘gross national happiness’ index just as the neighbouring kingdom of Bhutan does. Similarly, if Musharraf were to limit his rule and preserve liberty, it would certainly be better for the average Pakistani than the corruption and chaos of either Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif — and their ‘political parties.’ The moot point is not whether Musharraf or King Gyanendra or Lee Kwan Yew are dictators: the real issue is what exactly are their dictates. Lee Kwan Yew, for example, grants his people total economic freedom, but bans chewing gum and hangs anyone found smoking ganja. It is this illiberality that matters most. If the dictator’s dictates are not so intrusive, and if as a result Liberty is preserved, then one dictator may indeed be preferable to a rag-tag coalition of popularly elected criminal tribes posing as ‘political parties’. Let us turn to this critical issue. 

For a Pakistani citizen, what matters most is a clear understanding as to what he is free to do and what he is not. If Musharraf spells out clearly that murder, theft, kidnapping, rape, rioting, arson and the like are illegal, and those who indulge in these will face the brunt of his coercive powers, I have no doubt that every honest, hard-working Pakistani will breathe easy. Simultaneously, Musharraf will also be sending a clear command to his forces that only if someone indulges in these illegal activities should his men in uniform intervene. Thus, the military dictator will at one stroke liberate the good people, freeing them from interference, while also establishing ‘command-and-control’ over his own forces, by providing them with clear instructions on when they must act. The good people ofPakistan will be free, while Musharraf’s own men will be on a tight leash. Musharraf will not command the economy (like Nehru did), nor ‘education’ (like Manmohan Singh); he will command his own organisation of coercive government power. 

And his commands will be ‘just’. The citizenry will operate in a free economy, a ‘spontaneous natural order’. If this happens in Pakistan, I will applaud. For what matters most is what government does. Any government that preserves Liberty is good. 

Indians who clamour for democracy in Pakistan or Nepal should look critically at their own illiberal order. Under no circumstances can our socialist democracy be called good government. Pointing the ‘democratic finger’ at Pakistan and Nepal is not only injudicious, but also insincere. Freedom comes first. The precise political arrangement is inconsequential. 

This article was published in the New Indian Express on 16 December 2007.  Please read the original article here.