Freedom in all lands is
captive to class interests. It’s historically impossible for freedom –
freedom of will and of action – to get free from the clutch of its class
content as freedom is not class-neutral. Economic content of freedom,
moored in class interests, makes it biased, distorts its imagined
universal appearance – a concept materialized only in utopia – and
creates the need to anchor the concept in the solid base of science
instead of a superfluous sand beach of imagination.
Evaluating state of freedom without considering its
historical perspective, and to be specific, without considering the
dominating class interests in a society, its historical limitations, and
its antagonism with contending classes, leads to nowhere but to a
circle of confusion, to chattering, inactions or actions without aims or
actions without identifying class leadership. The confusing analysis is
embraced by dominating interests with a convulsive laughter.
No society was there in human history, where
dominating interests had no freedom bridled and compelled to compromise
by contending interests only. Dominated interests’ freedom was always
curtailed, denied, ignored, and muzzled. State of dominated interests’
freedom has always depended on the state of the interests’ awareness,
organization and struggle.
Thus, a polluter has all the freedom to pollute
water bodies, ground water, air and soil, a foodster has all the freedom
to put toxic substance in food marketed among the masses of people, an
ideologue has all the freedom to propagate anti-people ideas, concepts,
values, dreams and practices, an educator has all the freedom to
instruct with counter-scientific ideas, a publicist has all the freedom
to bring out whatever publication the gentle-person likes, an image
builder has all the freedom to build up image hollow in essence, a
bankster has all the freedom to flog inconsistent ideas, a profiteer has
all the freedom to swim in a pool of profit, a section of politicians
has all the freedom to deceive public and have a nice life without
accountability, and they all have all the freedoms – economic,
political, spiritual, etc. – to pool all the resources required to
fulfill all their passion. So, there is their near-absolute freedom as
absolute freedom is a void in nature and society, an imagination in a
society unstable with antagonistic class interests. This process of
near-absolute freedom of these interests denies freedom of the interests
that stand opposed to them.
Dominated interests have no freedom or limited
freedom or theoretically have all the freedom but essentially,
practically and functionally have no capacity and mean to meaningfully
engage with types of freedom – of expression, speech, etc., economic,
political, etc. This reality quashes overwhelmingly propagated universal
freedom. Dominated interests can have all their freedom of expression,
etc. codified but may not own the time to rest and reflect that can
allow the interests access required information, analyze those, identify
impediments to freedoms and tasks to realize those. It’s not that
always there will be a law banning freedom of expression. A reality
bombarded with sort of ideas can keep dominated interests inactive in
reflecting and formulating ideas upholding self-interests.
Dominated interests – the poor, the tormented, the
working people, the under classes – have all the freedom to live in and
live with poverty, ignorance, corruption and deceit for generations,
have all the freedom to pass all their “blissful” days without
information essential for analysis and survival, have all the freedom to
sale their body organ – kidney – for a little cash to those wealthy
buyers having all the freedom to fly into Bangladesh from some other
country as Monir Moniruzzaman, assistant professor of anthropology at
Michigan State University, found in his study “‘Living Cadavers’ in
Bangladesh: Bioviolence in the Human Organ Bazaar” (Medical Anthropology
Quarterly, vol. XXVI, issue 1). In a corner in this strange world, as
Reuters reported on March 19, 2012, girls have all the freedom to sale
their honor and consume steroids to have a lot of male consumers. Yes,
the girls like the girls from erstwhile Soviet Union and eastern Europe
are free to earn in a free market, in capitaldom, not in“serfdom”. It’s a
freedom “bestowed” upon the daughters of destitution. In a place in
this world, employers have “the power to deny prescribed birth control
pills to any female employee unless she provides proof she’s not using
it for […] birth control.” It’s the freedom of authority and employer
and non-freedom of a section of female employees!
Freedom turns a confusing concept as interests
interpret in respective ways. “The first is”, Franklin D. Roosevelt said
in his message to the US Congress in January 6, 1941, “freedom of
speech and expression […] The second is freedom […] to worship […] The
third is freedom from want […] The fourth is freedom from fear […]”.
Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address in 1801 mentioned
“freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of persons under
the protection of the habeas corpus, […]”. The Truman Doctrine
mentioned “freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from political
oppression.” “Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men” was a slogan of the Free
Soil Party, antecedent of Abraham Lincoln’s Republican Party. To a
section in society, cars are synonymous to freedom. To some, types of
freedom are the physical freedom, the political freedom, and the mental
and spiritual freedom. A section finds two types of freedom: negative
and positive freedom. Another section identifies four types of freedom:
“Freedom from” or “negative freedom”, “Freedom to” or “positive
freedom”, “Autonomy”, and “Freedom from domination”. William D. Gairdner
classified freedom as Internal Freedom, Self-Freedom, External Freedom
(“freedom from...”, “negative freedom”) Political Freedom (“freedom
to...”), Collective or "Higher" Freedom (“positive freedom” or “freedom
for”) and Spiritual Freedom. (“Six Kinds of Freedom”, July 4, 2006) A
classification finds three types of freedom: Freedom 1: freedom from
external impediments (essentially a political concept), Freedom 2:
freedom from internal impediments (usually part of discourse on issues
of psychology, personal morality and religion), and Freedom 3: autonomy
and democracy (interpreted in a political sense). Economic freedom is
sometimes defined as: “Secure rights to property (legally acquired);
Freedom to engage in voluntary transactions, inside and outside a
nation's borders; Freedom from governmental control of the terms on
which individuals transact; and Freedom from governmental expropriation
of property (e.g., by confiscatory taxation or unanticipated
inflation).” (Steve H. Hanke and Stephen J. K. Walters, “Economic
Freedom, Prosperity, and Equality: A Survey”, The Cato Journal, vol.
XVII, no. 2) A section in society perceives freedom as freedom of
capital and its kin. Freedom of capital is the essential message
Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom and Milton Friedman’s Capitalism
and Freedom carry. Assassinating or planning to assassinate statesmen
and politicians including Lumumba, Nasser and Castro, as BBC reported on
March 17, 2012 (“Licence to Kill: When governments choose to
assassinate”), is exercised by a section of dominating interests
including Anthony Eden, once a British prime minister, which is part of a
political fight waged by the interests, and this political fight is
part of the interests’ political freedom. The interests don’t expect and
shall not allow exercising the same political freedom by its contending
classes. Freedom of “corporate personhood”, of MNCs, and their power to
manipulate, encroach and subjugate all public freedoms just wipe out
all types of freedom of all, not only of the dominated section of
society. A real world tells: Freedom, political, economic, etc. is not
universal.
Now-a-days, indicators on freedom are abounding:
“Freedom in the World” of the Freedom House, “Democracy Index” of The
Economist, “Index of Economic Freedom” of The Wall Street Journal and
The Heritage Foundation, indices of Reporters Sans Frontiers and the
Canadian Frasier Institute, the Polity data series, claimed to be
indirectly of the CIA. Each of these uses varying measures and weight:
It’s probably not surprising that The Heritage Foundation and WSJ
emphasize on investment and financial freedom in their index. (Lockerz,
“A New Use for Freedom Indicators?”, Democracy & Society, Sep 27,
2011) Indicators measuring capitalism and political freedom assess
degree of capitalism; economic, trade, investment, business, and
financial freedom; private investment; competition in domestic banking;
competitive markets; lack of interest rate regulation; legally protected
private ownership of the means of production; legal enforcement of
contracts; price controls; collective bargaining at central level; etc.
Labor shackled to wage, poor mortgaged to misery,
common people fettered to destitution, masses sold to servitude are
denied entry in freedom. This makes freedom an unspecified, confused
concept. Without specifying class character and content of freedom a
mere mention of freedom turns into a pretension and prattle only as
“something” like universal freedom conceals class freedom and dominant
autocracy in all its forms – ideological, political, economic. Exercise
of freedom by the masses is completely different from the terms of
freedom determined by dominating interests that ignore the fundamental
question of class freedom and freedom of humanity.
A flaw will command an analysis of the state of
freedom in a society if the analysis completely concentrates on
freedom-space granted by dominant interests to the dominated. It is the
dominated interests’ awareness, organization, maturity and struggle that
ensure its freedom. Yearning for freedom of dominated interests and
simultaneously looking up for freedom-space grants by dominant interests
is a foolish, childish, impractical and ineffective aspiration carrying
no weight and meaning in political, economic, social and cultural life.
Our Bangladesh is a bright example. The glorious
days of language movement in 1952, of 1969 mass upsurge, the
December-days of 1990 are only a few of many examples as ordinary
Baangaalees compelled hostile forces to bow down, and the common persons
enjoyed freedom to the level they could achieve through their
organization and struggle. They had not waited for amplitude of those
dominating interests. A despised field marshal and a despised general,
Ayub and Yahya, knew it best. Our glorious days of 1971, the period We
the People of Bangladesh organized and waged our Great War of Liberation
is an undeniable example of achieving freedom. Noble and crimson bright
those days were. People’s pain, supreme sacrifice and valor glorified
all the freedom-minutes of that long period.
During those valiant periods the dominated section
waging struggle and war did not beg freedom, did not appeal to any
autocrat, to any donor, did not seek advice from any foreign diplomat,
did not hand over the task of defining agenda for freedom to donor
driven NGOs, did not mortgage consciences to any group of persons posing
wise and claiming civil society. During those days of the glorious war
under classes even challenged property relation to some extent in some
parts of the country. During those days red with people’s blood the
masses repudiated retrogressive, sectarian ideas, politics and
politicians, and embraced broader, advanced vision.
Only pointing fingers of accusation to this
political party or to that party for infringement of freedom-space will
carry no practical message if freedom related elementary information are
not disseminated among the masses, if people are kept unaware, if
imitating and showmanship replaces spade work for organizing people, if
the entire task is handed over to non-political appearing political NGOs
implementing donor agenda, if soul-searching is replaced by tailing
NGOs.
A brief comparison will help assess the state of
yearning for freedom of speech, expression, etc.: extent of propaganda
by MNCs, and the total number of circulated copies and the number of
publications of the political entities standing for freedom of
expression, etc.; number of round table, etc. of “non”-political and
political entities. Doesn’t MNC-propaganda infringe people’s freedom of
expression, etc.? Aren’t issues concerning ecology and climate related
to issues concerning freedom and people? Isn’t dignity part of freedom?
And, hasn’t that been demolished by a section of employees of some other
country? Similar questions shall confirm nothing but inertia in a
significant section of society that tasks itself with the duty of
sentinel of freedom.
With this reality isn’t it better to have a
soul-search before blaming this or that political party, before
denouncing this or that part of state machine? This sincere exercise
shall carry a message: at spes non fracta, but hope is not yet crushed.
