Liberty & Transparency

The French Presidential elections have been far less than a straight fight between the Socialist contender M. Hollande and the incumbent President Sarkozy. In particular there has been the rise of the French far right under Mme. Le Pen, capitalising upon a lot of anti-government sentiment following several years of strikes and protesting (Davies, 2010).

Yet this election can still be more than just extremists enjoying a day in the spotlight. Already, French progressives have made ground that can be capitalised on in the near future.

The moderate left and centre have had a strong campaign and polled well. In the election first round, the left and centre took 48.8% of the vote to M. Sarkozy & Mme. Le Pen's combined 45.2% - and far from all of the voters of the right would be willing to vote tactically for either (BBC, 2012). Heading into the second round of voting the votes appear to be stacked against M. Sarkozy retaining the presidency.

And there is much in common across the left.

M. Hollande has held an anti-austerity focus throughout his campaign (Chrisafis, April 2012), including campaigning for a 75% top rate of tax to cover national shortfall. Further to his left ran M. Melenchon - as the face of the Left Front ticket, primarily opposing the policies of Mme. Le Pen's National Front. M. Melenchon has reportedly stated that the Left Front's policies ideals have been vindicated by the adoption of that 75% top rate of tax by the leading Socialist party contender (Chrisafis, March 2012).

To the centre and Democrat candidate M. Bayrou will be disappointed with polling just 9%, having hoped to better his 2007 performance of 18.57%. None-the-less, during a very fractured election he still secured a fair portion of the vote on a ticket that campaigned for more focus on education, with a decidedly pro-Europe stance (Schofield, 2012). M. Bayrou's group will however be the most difficult to align with a left and centre grouping because of its relatively pro-cuts position, having previously promised constitutional amendments guaranteeing balanced budgets.

Also on the left are The Greens; they are led by Mme. Joly who has personally campaigned against corruption and led this campaign on self-admitted difficult arguments for the times - climate change, nuclear phase-out and the protection of biodiversity (EGP News, 2012).

So while Mme. Le Pen has campaigned along a forcefully nationalistic line - her party has not managed to dominate public opinion, even if it has dominated the news. They have further made life hard for anyone trying to unify a vote from the right; essentially for M. Sarkozy.

Sober and sensible attitudes on the left - like the past cooperation across the left and centre in Canada and Lib-Lab pacts in the UK; not least the past of cooperation between French progressives, radicals, liberals, socialists and democrats - can make positive and progressive solutions come out of this election.

In particular, using the electoral progress made on this stage to create momentum for legislative elections of the near future. And the best way to do that is for the left and centre to do this effectively, will be through open discourse - as John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty (1859) about truth and its divided nature:

'Conflicting doctrines, instead of being one true and the other false, share the truth between them, and the nonconforming opinion is needed to supply the remainder of the truth.'

This will of course mean facing the rise of extremism with reason - breaking through the shallow but tough crust with facts and evidence. It is a proven method that has worked before in politics, notably for Asquith against Chamberlain's rhetoric on tariffs.

With a strong mandate regardless of the second round result, French moderates have an opportunity to speak to an audience prepared to listen. To set an example for progressive politicians the world over by openly & publicly debating with integrity the policies of progressive parties and using evidence to systematically dismantle the foundations of misinformation and fear that props up extremism.

==========
References:
==========
+ Lizzy Davies' 'France: Protests over pensions bring over a million onto boulevards'; in The Guardian; 7 September 2010.

+ Angelique Chrisafis' 'Francois Hollande on top but far right scores record result in French election'; in The Guardian; 23 April 2012.

+ Angelique Chrisafis' 'Far-left firebrand Jean-Luc Melenchon calls for a "civic insurrection" in France'; in The Guardian; 18 March 2012.

+ Hugh Schofield's 'Francois Bayrou - or the power of self-belief'; 25 January 2012.

+ EGP News' 'Joly "strong and dignified" France presidential campaign'; April 24 2012.

+ BBC's 'France election: Hollande takes lead into second round'; 23 April 2012.

+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.

The Harm Principle

N-Dubz singer Tulisa Contostavlos (Wiseman, 2012) raised an important issue about consent when a tape was released without her permission. This brings to mind 'On Liberty' (1859), in which John Stuart Mill wrote:

'The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.'

This became the core of the 'harm principle'; the idea that only where an individual's actions may harm others can society have a legitimate mandate to outright interfere with individual liberty.

A great part of this harm principle is the promotion of personal responsibility. In being more clearly free to choose, the responsibility for decisions can be more clearly tied to individuals - increasing accountability. With the harm principle individuals can set themselves largely free of outside interference in their lives, through the disciplined exercise of this personal responsibility.

But with self-sovereignty, while individuals hold sole possession of power over themselves, the power of individuals is also limited strictly to themselves. As such, individuals must be aware of and in control of their actions so as not to interfere with the rights of others to choose, nor to force the hand of someone with whom a choice is shared.

'The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.'

Consider the recent case of N-Dubz singer Tulisa Contostavlos (Wiseman, 2012). An ex-partner released a tape of the pair sharing an 'intimate moment'; which Ms Contostavlos described as 'something he took upon himself, to put the footage online'.

In revealing this information, without her consent, this former partner assaulted Ms Contostavlos' liberty - robbing the singer of the right to choose for herself. Such an act is tyranny; an attempt by a person to increase their own power and importance by stripping someone else of theirs. But as Oscar Wilde put it:

'Despotism is unjust to everybody, including the despot, who was probably made for better things.'

Such despotisms do more than just accumulate power. They assault others by stripping them of their liberty and they assault the aggressor by piling extra responsibility upon their shoulders. But there is a further way that that despotic acts harm both the aggressor and victim.

As with the arguments over positive and negative liberty, all concerned should be wary about the knock on affects of taking away choice from any individual, even for the best of reasons:

'The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation, to a little more of administrative skill or that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State, which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.'

This 'vital power' being the tools and use of reason - developed in time through the practice of an individual making conscious decisions for themselves. And through denying this to others, by way of petty despotic power-grabbing, an individual will only ultimately harm themselves; both through establishing a precedent of interfering behaviour and through limiting the experience those around them have in making rational decisions.

==========

References:

==========

+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.

+ Eva Wiseman's 'Tulisa is feminism's new hero'; in The Guardian; 24 March 2012.

Agency & Positive Liberty

While the government continues tearing down bureaucratic fences (Moss, 2012) it is worth considering the policies that created those systems.

As the Victorian era drew to a close, accounts were published detailing the lives of the poor around Britain - by Rowntree in York and by Booth in London.

Meanwhile, the Liberal party underwent a change of attitude. After a decade out of power Gladstone's party had moved away from classical liberalism and toward social liberalism.

These moves coincided with the sentiments of the time, taking the party that featured Asquith, Lloyd George and Churchill into government. These Liberals sought policies favouring positive liberty in order to counter the problems exposed by Rowntree & Booth.

Elected into government, the party enacted the liberal welfare reforms; including free school meals and national insurance based welfare & pensions. These liberal reforms sought to accomplish more than just staying out of the way, taking head on the difficult contrasts of positive liberty - that structure can restrict and unhelpfully constrain, but also emancipate and liberate.

Such positive measures will always be toeing a very difficult line. The present attempts to update certain police powers in line with advances in technology - allowing the interception or monitoring of certain kinds of digital communications along the same lines as phone calls or mail (BBC, 2012) - have met with a great deal of controversy.

The emphasis with positive liberty is on what can be done to enable - creating limited structures designed to bring relief from the corrupt barriers that laisse-faire may build. While we can discover much about ourselves from what we are in the dark, most of our time is spent being bombarded by the whims of others - giving us a need for shelter or a leg-up where our natural situation offers not even the possibility of developing either.

==========
References:
==========
+ Richard Moss 'Can England's new enterprise zones get growth going?'; 13 April 2012.

+ BBC's 'Warning over need for safeguards in email and web monitoring plan'; 2 April 2012.

Structure & Negative Liberty

Many political scandals - from our present Tory access selling to the Edwardian cash for peerages - involve situations where those involved believe that there will be little or no repercussions to their actions.

But sometimes things are not so simple. Particularly when 'buying access' and 'lobbying and dinner' seem so similar. Yet concerns are dismissed as part of the way things are done (BBC, 2012).

How can those on the inside make such clear distinctions between situations so alike, that from the outside appear indistinguishable?

At the heart of this matter is the struggle between structure & agency. In essence, this refers to attempts to delimit just how much agency, the free action of an individual is possible within a society's structure (King, 2005).

In this case the agent, be it a politician or lobbyist, might be seen to be bound within a certain set of customs - where a failure to comply would lead to negative consequences such as policy heading in an unfavourable direction.

It is just such circumstances that make those who favour negative liberty, such as many American libertarians, to view governance with a wary eye. Through championing negative liberty, they seek to remove obstacles that might prevent an individual from doing 'those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do' (Hobbes, 1651).

Such a libertarian position seeks the removal of much of the structure that surrounds individuals in order to encourage circumstances where people are free to make their own decisions - on the merits of the decision itself rather than holding account to preconceived trends or prevailing opinions.

But such personal awareness and agency would be no easy task. Particularly since deconstruction would require the tearing down of many institutions that support resources vital to a society and the self awareness required for rational choices - institutions such as education & healthcare systems.

So while 'the way things are done' attitudes must be challenged, we must be wary not to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'.

==========
References:
==========
+ BBC's 'Lobbyist Mark Adams on Peter Cruddas and cash for access'; 26 March 2012.

+ Anthony King's 'Structure and Agency'; in Austin Harrington's 'Modern Social Theory: An Introduction'; Oxford, 2005.

+ Thomas Hobbes' 'Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil'; 1651.

What we are in the dark

In the Frank Miller story 'The Dark Knight Returns', the Batman is faced with a terrible choice. The Joker, having returned and unleashed a terrible spree of murder, is at the Dark Knight's mercy. The Batman must choose whether to take this chance to end the Joker's influence, in a situation where no one will ever know what transpired.

Sometimes however, decisions are made in the dark due to the presence of people rather than their absence.

In the Doctor Who series three two-part finale, 'The Sound of Drums' & 'Last of the Time Lords', the Doctor's companion Martha walks the Earth to spread a message of hope and lay the groundwork for revolution in the Master's dominion. But Martha's decision was taken not just when no one may ever know. It was taken when no one would ever punish the failure to step up to, or complete, the task.

The real test of character comes when we are left alone to choose; when no one can see and no one may ever know - even more so when we must choose to overcome the prevailing behaviour just to act

And these kind of stories are not confined to fantasy.

Consider Hugh Thompson Jr & his helicopter crew, the only American servicemen ever to be awarded medals for threatening to fire upon their own troops - when they stood up against the violence of the My Lai massacre.

Consider also the White Rose; for their dedicated advocacy of peace and opposition to injustice in the face of tyranny and certain death upon capture - who opposed the Nazi ideology of hate, knowing that no one would likely ever know what they achieved and no one would ever blame them if they didn't take the risk.

The UK's Tory access selling scandal is all about what goes on behind closed doors - along the corridors of power where (mostly) men of inscrutable power hold (allegedly) innuendo-laden dinner conversations that decide the fate of nations.

It is there that the need for ethics is most pressing.

Once more the Prime Minister has been forced to instigate special new measures of transparency and impartial adjudication. But the possible existence of a culture of unadjudicated, unscrutinised and inscrutable 'corridors of power' does not just demand transparency and oversight.

The Batman can be criticised for the secrecy and corruption inherent to his actions; for an ethical code that drives him outside of and above the law - where he makes decisions that affect many on his own, according to his own interpretations and perspectives.

In the real world we must avoid handing singular individuals such immense power over others. The damage done is two fold. It not only creates the potential for massive corruption, but also robs individuals of the personal accountability that creates the codes of ethics and self-awareness that is so sorely needed when those individuals graduate to positions of responsibility.