Am I a Liberal?
(March 8 – 20, 2009)
by Francisco M. Largo
 |
| Francisco
M. Largo |
The title of this report, while seemingly innocuous and a tad naïve,
speaks volumes for the insights I gained from the seminar “Liberalism
Today.” As I pointed
out in my application for the seminar, I was virtually clueless
about the liberalism, educated as I was in a decidedly mainstream
neo-classical economics education from undergraduate to graduate
school. For academics in such a position as mine, the criticism
of an “autistic” economics would certainly fit the bill.
We were and are educated in self-contained world where social phenomena
are ruthlessly explained and stripped apart through mathematical
models and corroborated or falsified through statistical techniques.
Sure, nuance has become pronounced as of late but an economist such
as myself would probably share the celebrated experience of an economist
who when asked if he was a “neo-liberal” reportedly
retorted: “Ano yun?” So while the rest of the social
sciences conversed freely in the terms and debates of political
philosophy, us orthodox economists went our merry way with our hammers,
equations and more equations. Beginning last year, however, the
desire to stretch my legs and cross fences into uncharted territory
became too powerful too resist. The desire to move is stronger when
one is pushed and that push came this year with the installation
of new leadership in my institution and consequent demand for introspection.
First came a seminar in a heretofore unstudied branch of economics,
the
economics of institutions. Which of course led to a broader foray
into political
economy which after so many words brings me to my application for
the seminar.
As expected, a greenhorn like myself groped in some aspects. The
library readings
were all right, the picture quiz was somewhat taxing (and I considered
myself
reasonably addicted to the BBC, CNN, and Bloomberg), the wiki exercise
a bit
involved, the online forum also took considerable effort at digestion.
I was delighted
and surprised to find out that I had been accepted for the offline
phase and I really
welcomed the opportunity.
Strangely enough, one of the first participants I met while checking
in at the
Academy asked me the very same question: “Was I a liberal?”
A few awkward
seconds followed before I somewhat embarrassingly stuttered: “
I am not sure. But I
suspect I am.” If being a liberal means believing in such
tenets are freedom of
choice, the rule of law, property rights, and free markets, then
I am one and I have
been one for the longest time. This part, the notion of economic
liberalism, the
notion that properly structured (clear enforceable property rights,
law that enables
transactions) markets give the most efficient outcomes I have had
no problem
espousing and what is more, has been reinforced with the study of
the institutional
and legal underpinnings of this notion. It was the introduction
to the political notions
of liberalism that really made this seminar worthwhile from my perspective.
Clearly
differentiating the political mainstreams was a very nice eye-opener
for me. What is
more, this delineation is made more important as the lines between
the mainstreams
have been blurred as of late. People mistake liberals for conservatives
because both
might stress the importance of free markets and the requisite frameworks.
Even my
friends professionally trained in political science make this common
mistake. In
arguing for democracy and human rights, liberals share advocacies
with social
democrats. What sets the true liberal apart, in my obviously limited
appreciation of
the ideology is the embrace of BOTH economic and political dimensions.
A true
liberal sits at the center of the political spectrum and if I only
got this from the
seminar, I would have considered my time well spent. But as the
English say the
test of the pudding is in the eating. And with subsequent exercises
on relevant
issues, especially to nationals of developing countries, of terrorism,
poverty, national
development, and my most awaited part, the global financial crisis,
the mettle of a
true liberal response would be tested. The films shown also tested
our
understanding of liberal principles.
A trip to a foreign land and meeting persons of various nationalities
is clearly
an enriching experience. My co-participants were lively and passionate
characters in
their own rights who each had something to share to the discussions
which made
them expectedly cosmopolitan in flavor. By the end of the seminar,
I had 24 new
friends from across the world to celebrate or commiserate when the
occasion
warranted. More concretely, I am looking for ways to cooperate more
closely with
my Southeast Asian colleagues in our current fields of research
and public affairs
engagement. The field trips to parliaments and visits with actual
parliamentarians
gave examples of concrete applications to liberal principles. I
found the trips to
Weimar and Eisenach particularly fascinating windows into German
history and
culture.
As an educator, I am always on a look out for new teaching and learning
methods that I can apply back home in my own classes. This seminar
did not
disappoint in this respect. I found the seminar moderators way of
imparting content
and facilitating discussion quite unique and especially effective
in ensuring group
participation. The hot seat exercise was one of the highlights for
me.
I did miss a few things foremost among them was a deeper discussion
of the
varying strands in liberalism. I would suggest that this be done
in a separate
seminar along the lines of a second offering which I think the foundation
has offered
before. If one is offered again, I will be sure to apply again and
I would again be
happy if granted a place.
All in all the experience met and exceeded expectations and I am
grateful for
the chance to participate. Am I a liberal? Yes, probably one who
still has much to
learn, but education is key to being one and from the looks of it
my education is only
beginning.
