Freedoms, rights and responsibilities

Freedoms, rights and responsibilities are interconnected in democratic, liberal post-industrial societies. Freedom is defined by civil liberties and individual rights. These rights are enshrined by law and protected by the third branch of the state; the judiciary. Individuals in society are bound by state law to act responsibly, any deviation from the line is thus considered a breach of the law and any individual who breaches the law would be punished by the state.

The question here is, in these societies what constitutes freedom? Isiah Berlin's depiction of a positive and a negative liberty/freedom dominates political discourse. There are those who may be described as left of centre who depict a positive form of freedom that allows for the development of an individuals potential [freedom from the law/the state] . Freedom here is defined as freedom from poverty. disease, coercion and oppression. In this instance, freedom could be seen in post-colonial societies across the third world. Here there was the removal of the imperialist colonisers who had subjugated native societies and exploited their resources for their own gain. The change in power, the promise of equal rights for all and the move towards a campaign against poverty and disease in most post-colonial societies can be seen as a clear example of positive liberty/freedom. In this sense, when Mohammed Mossadegh became Prime Minister of Iran in 1951 with the policies of increasing the powers of the majlis [parliament] and curbing the power of monarchy were steps toward a positive freedom for the majority of Iranian people. The prospect of limiting the power of the ex-colonial power, UK, by nationalising BP [formerly the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company] controlled Iranian oil fields was another step towards economic freedom.

The second form of freedom, that of the negative variety, derives from the understanding that human societies are chaotic, dynamic phenomena that require a degree of coercion and sacrifice to secure freedom. This form of freedom exists within recognised constraints, in most societies now that can be seen as being within state law. The state acts as the ultimate arbiter in ensuring that individuals in society do not exploit one another. In liberal democracies this is now the recognised norm, this is a particularly European definition of freedom. It derives from the historiography of Northern Europe, for example the work of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan emerges as a response to the English Civil War in the 17th century. This form of freedom exposes all kinds of problems when you consider the last 500 years of Northern European political culture. As this form of freedom has gained ground and has developed into the party political exchanges we see in elections on a regular basis, we see the flaws in the system. The popularity of corporatist systems and the democratic deficit in the political cultures of Northern Europe indicates that negative freedom really means the freedom of some and the exploitation of the many. In the USA 1% of the population owns more wealth than 95% of the populous, According to statistics from the Inland Revenue, the wealthiest 1 per cent owned approximately a fifth of the UK's marketable wealth in 2003. In contrast, half the population shared only 7 per cent of total wealth.

These interpretations of essentially contested concepts have had a massive impact on the peoples of the world. Mossadegh was seen as promoting an uncontrollable form of freedom, branded as a communist and overthrown by a UK-US backed coup. This led to the installation of the Shah Mohammed Reza of Iran, who slaughtered his people on mass and crushed his opponents. Internationally however he was an excellent customer for UK-US companies and seen as a strategic ally in the Middle East; in this sense the negative form of freedom in international relations has allowed for the maintenance of imperialist foreign policies that should have died a death 100+ years ago. The position of the exploited masses is further undermined by non-governmental organisations operating nationally and internationally to maintain an order that has brought misery to billions of people around the world.

Diaspora communities, those who live in Western Europe in particular, should move to address the needs not only of their local communities but also those who are suffering under the status quo. I offer that it is no coincidence that Somalis are amongst the poorest members of the UK and rank just as low in the scale of international poverty indicators. The maintenance of the current order is what keeps poor people poor. The few Somalis who deem themselves to be modern, free-thinking individuals are those who have been co-opted and hoodwinked into thinking they are part of civil society. Those who deem themselves to be benefiting from a system that allows for the creation of wealth and social mobility need to think again. A polarised society, where the benefit of the few is a direct consequence of the suffering of the many, is a hot-bed for extremism. Extrapolate what happens here domestically onto the international stage and it is clear to see why the system does not function.