Discussing the Basics of Liberalism
By Ronald Meinardus
Often, I begin workshops or classes dealing with liberalism by
asking the participants to share their definition of that political
concept by jotting catchwords on little cards, which are then
collected and pinned onto a moderation board. This method, I have
come to learn, is not only highly participatory, but also comes
close to a written referendum on the definition of a highly complex
and controversial concept. Topping the list of catchwords defining
liberalism is always the term “freedom.” No doubt, freedom is
at the very center of liberal thinking and ideology. In the exercise,
participants frequently add annotations to the noun ``freedom.’’
For them, liberalism means freedom of expression, freedom of association
and opinion or, very basically, freedom to do as one desires.
When I facilitate this exercise with participants
from Western countries, the answers tend to differ in some points.
Outside of Asia, emphasis is put on the freedom of the individual
and individualism. This differentiation between East and West
is not surprising, as most Asian cultures, particularly those
influenced by Confucian thinking, put more emphasis on harmony
in society than on the right of self-realization of the individual.
Not very long ago, these obvious divergences in political philosophy
were highlighted by Asian authors who suggested that, for cultural
reasons, liberalism and democracy are unacceptable concepts in
this part of the world. Fortunately, this so-called “Asian Values”
debate has ended, as the true intentions of the authors have been
exposed: to legitimise authoritarianism by undemocratic (and therefore
illiberal) rulers.
While freedom is at the core of liberal
ideology, there are other principles and values that are of similar
importance: freedom, in a liberal context, must always be accompanied
by responsibility, otherwise it would degenerate into lawlessness
and anarchy. Freedom in the political sense leads to democracy,
where liberals uphold the principles of pluralism and checks and
balances. Furthermore, a liberal society will always defend human
rights and maintain the rule of law. Liberals see this as the
best mechanism to strive for equality in society, as the rule
of law prescribes that everyone is equal before the law.
Admittedly, liberal theoreticians have
had problems with the concept of “equality” in the sense of economic
and social egalitarianism. Aside from all other differences, here
lies the main divergence between liberals and socialists: while
socialists tend to favour an order that assures equality of results,
liberals insist that equality should be limited to equal opportunities.
In today’s political practices, these differences have become
blurred, as all political forces are moving to the center and
ideologically clear-cut party programs have become the exception.
Nevertheless, looking at the basics, you may note that liberally
minded politicians will opt for solutions that increase the freedom
of the individual, while governments influenced by socialist thinking
will promote policies favouring equality.
The dialectics of freedom and equality
are specifically relevant regarding economic policies. In this
field I have discovered the greatest discrepancies in political
thinking between Asian liberals and their Western colleagues.
If you ask a European liberal today to define his ideology, it
won’t take long before he shoots out the word “market.” In Asia,
I have found, the enthusiasm as to the benefits of the market
economy are far less developed. In this part of the world, even
members of self-proclaimed liberal parties regard free trade as
a scheme that has made the rich societies affluent and has helped
to keep the underdeveloped poor. There exists a general understanding
that the present world economic order is unfair, helping perpetuate
economic inequalities and misery in the Southern hemisphere. ^Interestingly,
in the Liberal Party of the Philippines, to give but one example,
you may find politicians who are in favour of protectionism. Western
supporters of economic liberalization will have problems bringing
these basically nationalist forces in Asia to their side, as long
as the rich countries continue their own illiberal policies. While
Western governments advocate free trade, they continue the highly
illiberal practice of production and export subsidies in their
countries. As a result, local markets in the so-called Third World
are flooded with cheap imports, averting (and in some cases even
destroying) local production.
While the illiberal regime in international
trade continues, there is growing evidence that societies that
liberalize their economies create more wealth than those that
don’t. ”Countries willing to unleash their economies invariably
raise their standard of living,” writes the Heritage Foundation
in a recent report that ranks the world’s freest economies. Toping
this list of liberalized economies are Hong Kong and Singapore.
They are followed by New Zealand, Luxembourg and Ireland. The
two Asian frontrunners may have showpiece market economies, but
they are surely not models of politically free societies, with
Singapore having an especially depressing record on dealing with
political dissent.
From a liberal standpoint, the economic
success of Hong Kong and Singapore, and also the breathtaking
economic development of South Korea and Taiwan (one may also add
Indonesia and Malaysia) under previous authoritarian rulers poses
a special challenge. While liberals don’t accept political suppression
as a precondition for economic development, they strongly believe
that there exists no better method of creating wealth than the
market economy. Too often, political discussions focus on distributing
wealth in society. At this, socialist governments have proven
masters. Still, you must create wealth before you redistribute
it, and in this regard, only the liberals hold the key to a better
future for all.
Business World, Manila : December 6-7, 2002
© All rights reserved
Dr. Ronald Meinardus was the former Resident Representative
of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation in the Philippines and will
leave Manila late September for a new posting in the Middle East.
He writes a blog at www.myliberaltimes.com
