The Role of the State in Freedom and Equality

Freedom and equality are fundamental human rights, all of man yearns for and aspires for each. Freedom is defined as being independent or having liberty of thought and action. Equality on the other hand refers to the state of being equal in status or having the same rights or level of access to opportunities. The two concepts have been enshrouded in intense debate, most of it owing to the limitations in either or both in society. It is an observable fact that while scholars, all through time, have given their contribution on what both these concepts mean, equality and freedom are still far off dreams for most men. Freedom and equality for all in the society assures the continued development of society and as such the state should be at the forefront of pushing this objective. Every member of society is entitled to their individual rights and freedoms, and since sovereign institutions derive their legitimacy from these same individuals, they have the duty of maintaining these rights and freedoms, except where these freedoms go against the collective good.

This paper is going to focus on the contributions of several authors on the general concept of freedom, what it means, any limitations it might have and most importantly, the extent to which these fundamental rights and freedoms are limited by an individual being part of a society. Further, the paper will examine the role of political offices in regulating freedoms, and the political implications of the same. First, this paper will begin by focusing on the thoughts and deliberations of Plato on the subject through analyzing the chapter the Supremacy of Good in his book the Republic.

Plato was among the first to document that freedom and equality have a political basis when he put forward that philosophers must become the kings of good communities. However, in doing so, Plato clearly identifies that not everyone is suitable for this role laying the ground for differences among people. Plato points out that the uneducated cannot lead because they lack education which would otherwise have served to reorient them. To Plato, having an education meant superiority over those that did not, and those who did were better suited to govern (Plato. & Waterfield, 1994). Rousseau on the other hand argued that legitimacy of power is derived from its ability to transfer obedience into duty, and strength into right. If this was not the case, there was no point in a further discussion on the formation of the society as the strongest would win everything. He points to the contradiction that while man is born free, he is in chains everywhere (Rousseau & Cress, 1987). Further, Rousseau discussed freedom and equality as a basis for social contract that ceilings the power of sovereignty, that is limits it to general conventions. Freedom is important in this context as it demarcates the powers of the sovereign over the individual. The political and social implication of freedom lies in assuring the rights of even the weakest in the community.

 Mills in turn believed in the value of freedom and equality. He put forth that men should be free to act upon their opinions, and to carry them out in their lives without hindrance be it physical or moral (Mill & Gray, 2008). Mills, however, was of the opinion that liberty of the individual must be limited in as far as he is not to make a nuisance to other people. He further regarded liberty as the only permanent and unfailing source of improvement. Following these observations, Mills sought to identify the rightful limit to the sovereignty an individual has over himself. He also questions where the authority of society should begin. The view that he advances us that even though society is not founded on a contract, and he sees no good in inventing a contract to presume social obligations from, everyone who receives the benefits of society owes a return for it. Freedom is important since it delineates the rights of an individual and ensures no one person’s rights trump the collective will or good. At the same time, individual rights are assured by the same freedom. The political and social implication here lies in the expectation of an individual abiding by the society’s rules, even when there is no clearly defined social contract.

Kaufman and de Beauvoir choose to focus on the concept of freedom and equality in gender. On masculinity, Kaufman identifies the presence of little to no alternatives or incentives that sustain vulnerability. This, he notes, imposes on men the responsibility to solve their own issues either through violence or to suffer in silence. His view is that the constant denial of passivity and emotions is a denial of part of what men are. Kaufman attributes the failure to find safe avenues of emotional expression and discharge as the source of anger and hostility directed mostly towards women (Kaufman, 1987). De Beauvoir on the other hand points to gender roles throughout history and how they have affected women. Humanity, she observes, is male and man defines woman not in herself, but relative to him. Speaking on the pervasive inequality between the sexes in her time, she observed that the reason women did not have equality was their lack of a concrete means for organizing themselves into a unit that could stand face to face with the correlative unit (Beauvoir & Parshley, 1989). She also cites the fact that even legal recognition to women rights, and a political backing are still limited by long standing customs prevent their fu1l expression. Freedom here becomes important as it allows for self-expression in men, and being unburdened from gender roles in female. As a result of this, men will no longer have to suffer in silence, so instances of violence will reduce. Women on the other hand will not be compelled into restrictive roles. Socially, the freedoms enjoyed will lead to greater progress and development owing to the freedoms enjoyed by both genders. Politically, the institutions will ensure that legal recognition of women rights is unencumbered by customs or traditions.

In my opinion, freedom is a fundamental human right, all human beings should benefit from it. Freedom assures the continuous development of society on the basis of shared ideals. Like Plato, I believe education is a prerequisite for good leadership, but rather than it being a dividing factor, I think it acts as the great equalizer. The equality of the sexes is also important as through gender equality, we are able to advance further than we ever could if we were in a perpetual state of contest. Also, I am of the opinion that freedom of thought and action are not merely a preserve of what the political institutions afford us, but are an individual responsibility as well. While I subscribe to the idea of social contracts, and I believe they serve as a basis for law, I believe they should uphold equality and should not limit individual freedom unless it is for the general good.

To conclude, the state has a responsibility of protecting fundamental rights and freedoms of the people. Further, the state should marshal the equality of all persons under it, regardless of gender, creed or race. While individual freedoms are a preserve of all, they should not interfere with the rights and freedoms of other. In this regard, social contracts could be established to ensure that individual freedoms do not trump collective rights, and such contracts should form the basis of law. Further, the state should work towards addressing gender roles and fostering equality as this forms the core of development.

References

Beauvoir, S., & Parshley, H. (1989). The second sex. Vintage Books.

Kaufman, M. (1987). Beyond patriarchy. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Mill, J., & Gray, J. (2008). On liberty and other essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Plato., & Waterfield, R. (1994). Republic. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Rousseau, J., & Cress, D. (1987). Basic political writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.