Western vision and American values. Western notions of freedom and democracy - Essay Example

Part This question requires the discussion of the notion of the Rule of law and how it has developed within and through the Western Notions of freedom and democracy. My discussion explores the position vis a vis the two great democratic nations which have led the world in their quest for human rights and whose legal and political systems are deemed to be the envy of the world.It has often been said that the modern American Constitution along with the Declaration of Independence is a result of Lockean Ideals of Liberalism(that is John Locke's Concepts based on liberty, freedom, instituting government, and the right to alter that government.).However proponents of the heavy influence of British/European ideals (Gary Wills for example) have argued that a much more important role in this regard has been played by Scottish philosophers ,the Dutch and more importantly Britain.(Kavka 1986:45) Thomas G. West (2003:95) has summarized the position with regards to John Locke's ideals thus by way of stating, - That all beings are naturally equal - Which means that they have a right to liberty - Governments should provide beings with liberty - These Governments should be based on popular consent( majority rule), - Right to liberty is strictly speaking inalienable. According to Sheldon the Declaration of Rights reflects "three dominant ideologies present during the American revolution and the founding of the American republic. These political philosophies were British liberalismClassical Republicanismand Christianity," (Sheldon: 16). It can be seen that the Western Ideals of Government and Democracy are directly a result of the way ancient Roman and European philosophers sought to understand the human nature by the concept of the "state of nature." (Kavka 1986:87).This theory sought to look at human beings after stripping them of all their societal attributes, in the hope of uncovering their common characteristics.(Jean 1986:46) Through this theory they hoped to discover an effective theory of Government.For Hobbes man is purely motivated by self interest and in his notion of the state of nature all humans are competing with each other .(Jean 1986:58).For Locke of the state of nature reveals the obligations of humans to each other in terms of natural rights to life, liberty and property. In contrast for Rousseau in line with the tradition of the modern natural law there was a need to answer the "challenge of scepticism" and this would require a step by step approach to human nature based on self interest. (Jean 1986:69).For Hobbes men are politically obligated to each other based on their own selfish interests which is their state of nature. The notion of the state of nature assumes that it is each man for himself out there and every man is vulnerable. This he shows is not a desirable "state" to be in at all and therefore there is a need of an invisible assurance of security.For him this state of " perpetual and unavoidable war", will cause anarchy and will not benefit anyone.(Kavka 1986:87).Here he brings in his notions of the social contract which will help this society to restore stability and create a civil society. The first and most important law of nature commands that each man be willing to pursue peace when others are willing to do the same, all the while retaining the right to continue to pursue war when others do not pursue peace. The enforcement of the social contract thus involves the establishment of a society and the imbuement of one or many individuals with a sovereign status in order to "enforce and maintain" this contract. For Rousseau's the idea of the State of Nature takes a historic approach to this idea and mankind's progression into the civil society. He goes back to the historic state of nature for men and terms it as a peaceful time with a simple life for human kind. There was no competition as there was little population and plenty of resources. Armed conflict was barely there and people had little interaction with each other.For him human nature has corrupted into something selfish and greedy.The size and the nature of the population changed with time and so did people's attitudes as they began lives in concrete jungles and congested communities.There was the concept ownership and property and the notions of industrialism which tainted the simple human existence. People now discovered the notions of "social status" and this comparison lead to public values, leading to shame and envy, pride and contempt. For Rousseau the concepts of private ownership ,vanity and inequality resulted in the "fall of grace of humanity" out of the state of nature.He goes on to say that the notions of private ownership and property caused the development of labour exploitation and the need for a government.For him even though government gets established on the basis of serving the people there is actually a hidden agenda of dominating and degrading the less fortunate masses and helping the rich. The political philosophy of British liberalism, thus is found in John Locke's The Second Treatise of Government, and it can be seen from these ideals how these ideas of Liberalism, Political Equality, Liberty, Freedom, effected the Declaration of Independence. Locke's State of Nature, on the other hand , shows that man should have complete liberty to live their lives as they want without any interference from anyone.(Kavka 1986:49).It should be noted that Locke was not envisioning an anarchist State of Nature but a place where everyone was equal.Essentially this state is "pre-political" not "pre-moral".Locke's idea of law is the Law of Nature,the basis of all morality and it is God given law that we should not harm anyones "life, health, liberty, or possessions" .So unlike Hobbes state of nature (equalling a state of war) ,Lockes state of nature is a state of liberty and equality.(Kavka 1986:48) It would be worth mentioning at this point the modern European Ideals which have defined the Rule of Law as "a symbolic ideal against which proponents of widely divergent political persuasions measure and criticise the shortcomings of contemporary society practice"(Slapper 7th Ed:45).According to Dicey who in his book "Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution" (1885) with his notoriously chauvinistic view of the English Constitution, (Slapper 7th Ed.) suggested that there were three elements in the British Constitution which created "Rule of Law" in the UK. Firstly he said that no man could face punishment in Britain or be lawfully interfered with by the authorities except for the breaches of the law. Secondly no man is above the law and everyone regardless of their rank, is subject to the ordinary laws of the land. Thirdly and finally he said that Britain did not need a bill of rights because the general principles of the constitution were the results of the judicial decisions. There is a lot to be said about this traditional notion of the Rule of Law. As Slapper (7th Ed.) has pointed out that this notion not only has an "unresolved tension" with the concept of sovereignty of parliament but it also has a very optimistic view of the rule of law. Dicey seems to assume that the Monarch will always pass good laws and these laws will be followed and applied in the best spirit by the courts. What he seems to forget is that even in the year 1885 when the book was published there was the concept of parliamentary privileges and the Queens Prerogatives and privileges. Furthermore Dicey's third notion stands nowhere today after the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998. Moreover As Lord Steyn(2007) puts it, "In Nazi Germany, amid the Holocaust, pockets of the principle of legality (for what it was worth) sometimes survived. In Nazi Germany defendants sentenced to periods of imprisonment before the Second World War were left alone during the terms of their sentences. Only when their sentences expired did the Gestapo wait for them at the gates of the prisons and transport them to the death camps. So even in Nazi Germany an impoverished concept of legality played some role"1 Conclusion It should be noted that the modern conceptions of rule of law have come a long way in terms of influence from their British and American ideals However it should also be seen that the concept has grown in such a way that rule of law will not necessarily mean rule of fairness and justice. Therefore the role of the judiciary remains of primary importance in preventing such breaches of the rule of law.It is difficult to resist the temptation of assuming that countries like the USA and Britain,with their Human Rights Act 1998 and Declaration of Independence have got a complete rule of law.It seems that despite all these ideals we are looking at a modern 21st century definition of the concept of the rule of law with greater emphasis on judicial activism and independence. Part -2 I would like to begin my essay with a famous quote by Tocqueville Democracy in America (1835), who whilst contrasting the United States and Russian market systems famously said, "the principle of the former is freedom; of the latter, servitude." An economy of a country is its state in terms of its production and consumption of goods and services, and the supply, investment and saving of money. There are different types of economic systems practiced throughout the world today depending on the country's ideological background. An economic system is based on the response that each economy has to the problem of scarcity. Academic opinion has differed constantly in the role of these economic systems as contributing to democracy and freedom. Today although there are no pure command economies or pure free-market economies the ideals of " Perfect competition" are popular amongst the Western economists however who have found idea of government interference non conducive to the notions of democracy. To understand their points of view it is worth looking at the differences between the two competing systems of resource allocation in the world today to assess why a free market system is more compatible with democracy. .In a command economy decisions are made by centralized planners mostly the government based institutions. They will determine the, main economic dilemmas of what to produce; how to produce as well as the cost and over all resource allocation. Command economies are sometimes known as planned economies as well since they rely on plans implemented by the way of command. The ideology behind a command economy can effectively be summarized as "to each according to his need and from each according to his ability".(Stephen 1987) Contrariwise in a free market economy the main factor that determines the allocation for resources is their supply and the demand for them. The state will have very little interference if any with any economic activity that will occur and that anyone can take part in this economic activity. In a free market economy the government plays a minimalist role in the allocation of resources. All the economic decisions are taken by individuals and firms, which are assumed to act in their own self-interest. Thus in a free market the "invisible hand" (preached by Adam Smith) is at work adjusting the price and demand and supply of goods and services depending on the rise of fall of each of them.Western economists have resented the fact that a command economy has price controls in place, which means that the government fixes the price of all goods and services and they must be sold at that fixed price. The free market system is often termed as "laissez-faire". This effectively means that entrepreneurs have the freedom to produce what they want, which means they are allowed to buy, manage and sell resources wherever they want. Also the consumers are allowed to spend their income in any way they want. In a free-market economy, entrepreneurs, respond to the consumers demand. This is the basis of how the price system works. The interactions between the producers' supply and the consumers' demand determine the price. In a free market individuals have the right to own their own property such as capital which is a man-made aid to production such as land, machinery and buildings. The entrepreneurs in a free-market economy are allowed to use this capital to make an income by producing goods and services with this capital for the consumers. In a command economy all land and capital is owned by the state as contrasted to private ownership in a free market economy. There is no concept of private property. All property and capital are owned by the government .The ideological premise behind this is that it is believed that private ownership of property leads to inequalities in wealth and therefore only the rich can support themselves and use services and goods which are provided and that the poor who have no wealth can not afford these services and goods that they need. (Stephen 1987). Problems presented by command and free market economies. An important feature of a market economy is the feature of self-interest where everyone in the economy is encouraged to do his or hers' best. However a free market is often criticised for its instability in the long term. It is believed that free-market economies often cause poverty as many people can find it difficult to work due to illness or age. Technological changes are often blamed for widespread poverty in the name of efficiency.(Stephen 1987). In its pure form the command economies have also faced considerable hardships. This is due to a lack of incentive for the workers as there is an overall low standard of living and lack of achievement; Therefore at times a command economy will lack productivity and efficiency.(Ayn 1986:96) This is the complete opposite of a free-market economy as everyone is working in their own self-interest and therefore is more likely to want to work and so this system promotes incentive and boosts efficient allocation of resources. Command economies have also had dire bureaucratic corruption in history. An example is Stalin's regime where there was considerable corruption in the name of "peoples good".(Stephen 1987) As mentioned before there is no longer a purely "command" or "free market" system present in the world today.(Ayn:1986:67).The new "mixed" economic system tries to avoid the short comings of both these systems by providing adequate government intervention to counter poverty and unemployment. The modern government will provide unemployment benefits and check monopolies created by the free market. Many academics have formed their own opinions regarding the pro's and con's of the free market economic system. It is said that the economist Joseph Schumpeter was known for his resentment against the destruction some of the free market/capitalist ideas could cause and he stressed instead on the immense creative power of capitalism and it being a driver of change ,technology and innovation(Ayn 1986:34) As he explained in his classic Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy: (1983), Capitalism, then, is by nature a form or method of economic change and not only never is but never can be stationary...The fundamental impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion comes from the new consumers' goods, the new methods of production or transportation, the new markets, the new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates. Schumpeter argued that the secret behind capitalism's success as a driver for reform also caused it to clean up the economy from obsolete industries that is as a form of "creative destruction" of the free market and a catalyst for a sort of dramatic capitalist progress.(Ayn:1986:45) For him the old economic systems, like feudalism ,mercantilism, socialism(all forms of command economied) concentrate the power in the hands of a self-satisfied orthodoxy.(See also Rostow 1960).I would agree with his point of view in conclusion therefore that capitalism does not allow the governmental support to smother the competitive environment and allows the conditions of perfect competition. It is indeed a theoretical ideal and a view shared by other economists like Emerson aswell.According to Emerson free market protects the right of creative entrepreneurs to innovate and contribute well being for the society .Therefore the Western ideals of Democracy are more at ease with the Free market system which guarantees lesser interference by the Government and an overall development of the society's conceptions of individualism as a whole. Bibliography 1. Lord Steyn (2007) Democracy, the rule of law and the role of judges, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2. Joanna Miles,(2000), Standing under the Human Rights Act 1998: Theories of Rights Enforcement & the Nature of Public Law Adjudication, The Cambridge Law Journal (2000),133-167 Cambridge University Press 3. Setting the record straight: human rights in an era of international terrorism, E.H.R.L.R. 2007, 2, 123-132 4. The Human Rights Act six years on: where are we now, E.H.R.L.R. 2007, 1, 11-26 5. Commercial confidences after the Human Rights Act, E.I.P.R. 2007, 29(10), 411-419 6. Slapper, Gary and Kelly, D (2004) 'The English Legal System, 7th edition', London, Cavendish. 7. Becker, Carl L. The Declaration of Independence A Study in the History of Political Ideas. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969. 8. Huyler, Jerome. Locke in America The Moral Philosophy of the Founding Era. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995. 9. Jefferson, Thomas. "Declaration of Independence." Wikipedia. 9 Feb. 2008. Wiki.org. 10 Feb. 2008 . 10. Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Government. London, 1824. Google.Books.com. Google & Harvard. 10 Feb. 2008 . 11. Sheldon, Garrett Ward, and Scott Douglas Gerber. The Declaration of Independence Origins and Impact. Washington: CQ Press, 2002. 12. West, Thomas G. The American Founding and the Social Compact. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2003. 13. A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, in The Social Contract and Discourses, trans. and introd. G. D. H. Cole (J. M. Dent, London, 1973), 50, 57-8,61,71-4, 79-80. 14. Leviathan, ed. with introd. by J. C. A. Gaskin (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996), 86-7, 89, 91,113-15. First published 1651 15. Hampton, Jean. 1986. Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 16. Hobbes, Thomas. 1651a. Leviathan. C.B Macpherson (Editor). London: Penguin Books (1985) 17. Kavka, Gregory S. 1986. Hobbesian Moral and Political Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 18. Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration. Yale University Press (2003). 19. Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic 20. Marx, Karl (1886). Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production. 21. Mises, Ludwig von (1998). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Scholars Edition. 22. Rand, Ayn (1986). Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Signet. 23. Reisman, George (1996). Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics. Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books. 24. Resnick, Stephen (1987). Knowledge & Class: a Marxian critique of political economy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 25. Rostow, W. W. (1960). The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 26. Schumpeter, J. A. (1983). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. 27. Scott, John (1997). Corporate Business and Capitalist Classes. . 28. Weber, Max (1926). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. . Read More