Liberalism and Definitions
Giulio
Ercolessi – LibMov
This is the text of a lecture held at the Southern European School of Liberalism, organised in Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain, on September 27th - 28th 2013, by the European Liberal Forum, with the support of the Galician think tank Galidem, of the Portuguese Movimento Liberal Social, of the Forum for Greece and the Friedrich Naumann Stiftung. It is largely a replica – with small adaptations – of a similar speech held within the two-day training on “Party structures, articulation of a vision, campaigning and internal party democracy and integrity”, organised in Parenzo/Poreč, Istria, Croatia, on June 29th - July 1st 2012, by the International Democratic Initiative, ELDR, the National Democratic Institute and LIBSEEN (Liberal South East European Network). An Italian translation of this lecture, by Francesco Cuccù and revised by the author, was published in the appendix to Giulio Ercolessi’s book on the Italian constitutional reform introduced by the Renzi government, “Sfascismo costituzionale. Come uscire vivi da un azzardo politico temerario. Una proposta liberale”, Ariccia (Roma) 2015.
Una traduzione italiana di questa conferenza, a
cura di Francesco Cuccù e rivista dall’autore, compare ora
in appendice al volume di Giulio Ercolessi “Sfascismo costituzionale. Come
uscire
vivi da un azzardo politico temerario. Una proposta
liberale”,
Ariccia (Roma) 2015.
1) The beginning
«Every man has a property in his own
person».
If it were not for the total lack of gender
neutrality in this sentence (but
until a few decades ago nobody would care), one could think that we are
dealing
here with such biopolitical issues as abortion, gay rights or
euthanasia.
These issues were far away from the interests
of the man who first wrote
this sentence, a man of the 17th century, who,
as all the people of
his time, would likely not be in tune with today’s liberal
positions on these
issues. It was John Locke, in his Second treatise of government (1690),
that probably
set the birth of proto-liberalism as a political theory. What is
telling is how
this principle can still produce ever more profound effects on the ever
changing problems of our time: the «property in his own
person», that was first,
at least de facto, meant for the male, adult, white, mostly well-to-do,
protestant,
heterosexual, able-bodied, native citizen, is in fact now the more and
more
obvious domain of universal rights.
Property itself was given by Locke the very
political role of a defence
against the king’s absolute power. And that political
– and not merely economic
– role has proved to be as much important in the 20th
century. The
experience of communism has confirmed that a free society can only be a
polyarchic society, in which the holder of political power does not
also hold most
of the economic power and power over the media. And the
self-determination of
what Locke called “every man” – i.e.
every individual – is today, too, the
centre of liberal concern.
To an extent, liberalism has so deeply shaped,
more than any other ideology,
the very fabric of the Western civilization in the contemporary age,
that nowadays
liberalism and Europe, liberalism and the Western political
civilization,
almost identify.
Hence, defining liberalism is more difficult than before.
2) A definition
Is a definition necessary?
I think it is in order to have a critical
control on one’s own language,
but we cannot expect it to be a prescriptive definition: it can only be
a
proposal, not the prescription of a particular use.
And I think a definition is also necessary in
order to avoid confusion. Otherwise,
if we accepted to define as liberal whomsoever adopted the label, we
should include
in our family, for example, the antisemitic and anti-Western Russian
party of
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the so-called “Russian
liberal-democratic party”. (And,
to the shame of us Italian liberals, Berlusconi too, who sometimes
describes
himself as liberal – and his non-liberal opponents have let
him do so for twenty
years).
There are other difficulties.
1. Political definitions also carry very
subjective, non-rational understandings.
Think, for example, of the different resonance and understanding that
the words
that define the principal political ideologies have, depending on the
personal
opinions of different individuals. Norberto
Bobbio quoted the example of the word
“communism”, synonymous
with deprivation of all individual liberties and of generalised misery
for most
of us, and synonymous for earthly paradise for millions of committed
communists
decades ago.
National traditions also may bring about
misunderstandings. European
integration and globalisation itself would obviously require a joint
vocabulary, but all political speech is rooted in different linguistic
and
historical traditions.
One year ago, I was at an ELF seminar in
Prague. The audience was mostly
composed of Central and Eastern Europeans from former communist
countries;
three of the speakers in one of the panels were Western Europeans
– a
Frenchman, a German and myself. When we used the word
“federalism”, we were naturally
thinking of the US, of Switzerland, of the success story of the Federal
Republic of Germany; but we realized that for the audience that word
was linked
to totally different historical experiences: the Soviet Union, former
Yugoslavia, communist Czechoslovakia.
And another example of such misunderstandings
is typical of this part of
Europe: here the word “nationalism” bears today a
very peculiar meaning, if
compared to the rest of Western Europe. It is not a more moderate form
of
“chauvinism” or “jingoism”, but
is related to the request of self-determination
of parts of the Spanish state, traditionally deprived of their
democratic
rights by a centralistic and for centuries authoritarian power. Yet, if
you
asked an average learned and cultivated European what can be described
as
“nationalist” in the contemporary history of Spain,
this person would quite
obviously think of the Franco regime, rather than of any democratic
movement.
2. The thing liberalism (unlike, for example,
mainstream socialism) was
born before its theory. The theory was formulated after a number of
demands for
political reform, economic reform, religious reform, social reform,
produced a
melting pot of new ideas and institutions during the “Great
Rebellion” of XVII
century England. The new form of government finally arisen from the
“Glorious
Revolution” towards the end of the century, despite all its
contradictions, was
the only relevant and real alternative to the opposite model of that
time, the
French “solar monarchy”, that had been a reference
for all the major
European countries.
3. Thing and theory were both born before the
name was born. Perhaps surprisingly,
the word “liberal”, as a way to qualify a political
stance, was born in Spain,
at the time of the Cortes de
Cádiz, in 1810-12, when a
parliamentary assembly was drafting the first Spanish constitution,
protected
by a British fleet; and when, very tellingly, a “servile
party” – “partido servil” – was opposed to a
“partido liberal”.
4. Liberalism (unlike socialism – at
least at its beginning) does not
coincide with one single philosophy: it has always been a
philosophically polygamist
(libertine in the trivial sense of the word), merely political theory,
that married
with empiricism, the Enlightenment, Kant’s criticism,
idealism, positivism,
instrumentalism, and with the most diverse “analytic and
“continental”
contemporary philosophies; and also with libertinism, rationalism,
atheism, some
very important Protestant theological currents since its birth
– and even with
some minority brands of Catholicism.
5. Liberalism
largely coincides
with a civilization, despite countless contradictions, and yet has a
universalistic vocation. It is not the common fruit of the Western
civilization
as a whole, even though it grew on some typically Western cultural
depositories.
Some of these depositories deserve to be
mentioned. A) The Greek
classical philosophical tradition and the political thought and
“constitutionalism”
of the Antiquity, as reassessed, re-appropriated by scholars and
revitalized
since the Renaissance. B) The heritage of Roman Law and Common Law:
i.e. the
rule of law, gradually led by liberal constitutionalism to cover even
the
production of new laws under the judicial review of ordinary or
constitutional
courts (this connection between liberalism and legal traditions,
practices and theories
is often underestimated by historians, political philosophers, and even
political scientists, perhaps because outside their academic focus). C)
Conflict among political and religious powers, that forced Western
Europeans, throughout
their history, to take side in political, religious and
politico-religious struggles.
Conflict entails differentiations. At a time when these
differentiations were
believed to involve individual salvation or perdition, the personal
choice of
the Western individual, whose loyalty was contended by Popes and
Emperors, became
crucial. D) Hence, also, arose the new Western idea of the individual,
especially
born in the Ancient Low Countries and in Northern and Central Italy in
the late
Middle Ages and well visible in the material culture and in the figurative arts and
literature of
both regions. E) The central role and the incoercibility of individual
conscience,
born with Christianity and empowered by the rift caused by the
Reformation. F) The
disenchantment of the medieval world – also an
unintentionally joint result of
both libertinism and the Reformation – (that forced
to a smaller extent also
the Catholic church of the Counterreformation to rationalise its
doctrine and
impose a sharp resizing to spontaneous and superstitious popular faith,
at
least in those areas where the Protestant challenge was most dangerous)
and the
birth of modern science. G) Tolerance, as a lesson taught to us by
religious
wars.
But liberalism – and tolerance as a
value, and not as the consequence of
the impotence of power to crush dissent – is basically a
Dutch, English,
American and French product, that proved capable in the last three
centuries of
being introduced, transplanted, copied, adapted, sometimes even
improved, in
very different cultural and political environments. This historical expansion of liberalism beyond
its original boundaries can
be seen today as a promising precedent for regions where new
totalitarian or
fundamentalist threats seem to be on the rise.
This process is particularly evident in the
history of the Italian
Risorgimento, when both moderate and radical liberals mostly shared the
idea
that the civic backwardness of 19th century
Italy was largely a
consequence of the political predominance of the Roman Church: Italian
patriotism
at the time was largely nourished by the leyenda negra of
Counterreformation Spain, that had ruled over a large part of Italy,
especially
in the 17th century, and by the positive
opposite examples of
British parliamentarianism, of the French secularist principles of
’89,
sometimes of Swiss federalism and – in the eyes of the most
far-sighted – of
the new-born and at the time far-off American democracy. But the
British and
later the American examples had been an extremely important reference
even for
French liberal-minded thinkers before and after the Revolution: just
think of
Montesquieu, of Voltaire’s Lettres anglaises, of Constant, of Guizot and Tocqueville.
And in
Spain, too, the British example played a major role (that was recently
explored
by Manuel Moreno Alonso in his book La forja del liberalismo en
España).
In any case, liberalism is today almost
synonymous with our political
civilization, as opposed to others in the world. So much so, that
almost no
political force in our countries can survive today on a totally
anti-liberal
platform: at least, they have to pay lip service to some of our basic
principles, even when their policies openly contradict them.
Hence, every definition of liberalism can only
be what is called in
social sciences an ideal type, i.e. an abstract intellectual
construction, to which
we can compare what exists in history and in societies, in order to be
able to
appreciate what is most liberal, what is least liberal, and, of course,
what is
most illiberal or anti-liberal.
We should therefore try to propose a
definition. And this is my
proposal: liberalism is a theory of the ends and
a theory of the means: maximising individual
freedom and self-determination, mainly through the instrument of the
legal limitation
of powers.
If we accept this definition, Liberalism is a
perpetual work in
progress.
First because, from the very beginning, it was
connected with an ever
more comprehensive and ever more consistent fight against authoritarian
traditions and beliefs, and because of the natural inclination of every
political, traditional, bureaucratic, social and economic power to
confront and
overrun its imposed limits.
Second, and as a consequence of that, because liberalism was never restricted to the limitation of political power: liberalism always aimed at imposing limits also on the ever possible tyranny of a democratic majority; on the abuse of economic power, through anti-trust legislation protecting free market and competition, and through a legal protection of workers from abuse, and defending consumers from fraud and adulteration; on the abuse of power even inside communities and families, advocating equal rights for women (since Locke’s time, and his reduction of marriage basically to its merely legal framework) and protecting children from abuse and indoctrination.
3) Not One Single Economic Liberalism
Third, finally, because the economic means
necessary to fulfil the goal
of enhancing individual self-determination do change with the different
challenges we have to face.
The brand of liberalism that was mostly
recognized as such, after the
end of World War II and until a couple of decades ago, the one that
largely
influenced most of the political spectrum in most Western democracies
throughout the Cold War, not only required the guarantee and the
implementation
of the individual liberties that were trampled by communist and other
totalitarian regimes, but also included a push towards an ever greater
inclusion and empowerment of each individual in the actual exercise of
his/her
citizenship and liberal rights. That had originally been a typically
liberal
idea, born in the Victorian age in the same country, England, that had
given
birth to liberalism two centuries before. The idea was that public
powers
should actually put individuals in the condition of making real use of
their
liberal liberties. The Welfare state itself was first conceived and
designed by
liberals as Keynes and Beveridge, who were card-carrying members of the
British
Liberal Party, not by socialists or social democrats. And for years,
not only
communists, but also a lot of mainstream socialists, had been accusing
the
wicked liberal economist John Maynard Keynes, for having rescued
capitalism
from its certain downfall, thus preventing the rise of a happy global
socialist
society.
It is a fact that almost all national political
classes and state
bureaucracies had long been squandering since, to their own advantage,
much of
the benefits they were supposed to make available to a majority of
citizens.
A healthy liberal mistrust towards ever
possible abuses committed by the
holders of political power, and a less naive and more sober notion of
democracy, should have suggested that “public” is
by no means equivalent per se
to “caring for public interest”. Moreover, the
demographical and technological
transformations of the last three decades nowadays impose deep reforms
of the
welfare systems in order to assure their financial sustainability. But,
as it
frequently happens in politics – and in social sciences
– an overreaction took
place since the late Seventies on both sides of the Atlantic, in the
end
substituting the liberal consensus that had been shared in most Western
countries by the moderate left and the moderate right alike while we
were
containing and opposing Soviet communism, with what was –
usually derogatively –
called Washington consensus in the
Nineties, that was more inclined to accept growing inequalities, and,
especially,
also decreasing equality in opportunities.
In some countries, namely in France, and
elsewhere to a smaller extent,
that essentially merely economic and very often caricaturized doctrine
became
synonymous with liberalism, to the point that the previous meaning
– liberalism
as synonymous for political freedom and freedom of conscience in the
first
place – has long been labelled as vieilli
(outdated) by French
dictionaries: so that even the Chilean Pinochet regime of the Seventies
and
Eighties can often be defined as libéral in the present French political debate.
Anyway, this new basically economic theory, not
the comprehensive
liberal political views that embodied the Western opposition to
communism from
the Forties more or less to the late Seventies, was the ideology upon
which the
globalised world was restructured after the fall of communism.
At the beginning it was a success, because of
the enormous growth caused
by the more open societies in general and by the opening of totally new
markets; and perhaps most of all by the simultaneous huge technological
revolution; and, later, due to the practice of easy indebtedness. The
subsequent global economic crisis still ongoing, and the consequent
discredit
that the most radical interpretations of the so called Washington
consensus are undergoing, should not be allowed to drag
liberalism into disrepute together with them.
A liberal society cannot survive without a free
market economy, not only
because private enterprise is an expression of individual freedom, and
because
the economic development, that it alone can make possible, is necessary
in
order to achieve a satisfactory degree of human development, but also
because a
liberal society must be polyarchic: political power, economic power and
power
over the media power should be as much separate as possible. Strong
counter-powers to the political power are vital for a liberal society.
And free
trade is also the best guarantee for peace in a global world: thanks to
globalisation, perhaps for the first time in history, the rise of a new
global
superpower like China is not leading to a war among the major powers,
that
today would be the global nuclear war that had been threatening all of
us for forty
years.
It is however not only a long overdue tribute
to historical accuracy,
but also a statement of fact, that different views on the extent of
legitimate
and suitable state intervention, and different ideas on the desirable
level of
equality of opportunities, have always been present in the history of
contemporary liberalism. We should remember this while trying to find
the way
out of the present global crisis.
Rather than focusing on the traditional (and in my humble opinion largely arguable) distinction between the so-called “classical” and “social” brands of liberalism, I would express my personal preference for a third possible variety of liberalism, that has been recently identified and categorised as a distinct one in a very interesting lecture given by our ELF friend Patrick van Schie, Bildungsliberalismus (German translation for the original Dutch ontplooiingsliberalisme, said to be difficult to translate into English or other languages): a current originating from the thought of Wilhelm von Humboldt and John Stuart Mill, for which the main role of public institutions is that of empowering individuals to display all their personal potential, especially in the field of education, and of enabling them to free themselves from the straight-jacket of community and group coercion. One must always remember, anyway, that also these distinctions among different varieties of liberalism are ideal types, too: they are to be taken as the theoretical frameworks for elaborating actual policies. None of these ideal types definitions – and Bildungsliberalismus perhaps even more than the other two – is sufficient per se to identify consequent policies or political programs; they are rather, and quite obviously, subject to different possible interpretations.
4) The Communitarian Challange
Both more Keynesians and more free-trader
liberals or, if you wish, classical
liberals, “social” liberals, and Bildungsliberalen alike should find a common ground on the
overriding
importance they all attach to the freedom and free development of the
personality of each single individual: personal freedom, freedom of
speech, the
right to a due process of law, protection from discrimination on the
ground of
ascribed identities (ethnicity, physical characters, age, disability,
sex,
gender, sexual orientation) or on the ground of political, cultural and
religious choices; and equal social dignity.
Yes, the rule of law, human rights, liberal
constitutional democracy are
nowadays the joint heritage of all the democratic political families in
Europe.
But all these values and principles are the outcome of liberal
initiative,
liberal imprinting, liberal intellectual leadership in the past. We
should be
their most demanding interpreters today.
The ever impending risk of the
“tyranny of the majority” is nowadays
most notably visible in the debate concerning the rising and aggressive
claims
of religious fundamentalists (both Islamic and Christian), the new
bioethical
issues, prohibitionist policies and the controversies over
multiculturalism.
On all these issues we should stick to the rule
that basic
constitutional principles – individual liberties, equal
rights and dignity, the
rule of law, democracy – are the only acceptable binding
civic bonds of an open
society despite the claims of populists and religious fundamentalists.
This is
what I proposed to call the “patriotism of the Liberal Grundnorm”, with an explicit reference to Jürgen Habermas’s idea of “constitutional
patriotism” and to Hans Kelsen’s
idea of Grundnorm: i.e. the only possible sort of inclusive
patriotism, for Europe and
for each of its traditional nations alike.
This implies that the state, or public powers,
can never be entitled to
forcefully protect adult and sane individuals from themselves (remember
Locke: «every
man has a property in his own
person»); that
individuals should
always be treated as individuals, not as individual members of typified
groups;
that cultural diversity can never justify a compression of
individuals’ rights
within minority communities, or minority families, or those of
minorities
within minorities; that faith, ideas and practices of their elders
should never
be forcefully imposed on those minors that are «capable of
forming their own
views» (as stated by the New York 1989 Convention on the
Rights of Children).
No better institutional framework could be
provided, in order to protect
these individual liberties and rights, than that provided by our great
and
successful liberal tradition of religious neutrality and separation
– as large
as practically feasible – between religion and political
power.
This achievement was the converging result of
the struggles both of
deists, free-thinkers, libertines and immanentist or atheist
philosophers, and
that of religious minorities. In the new multireligious situation, when
many
claim that “interreligious (i.e. inter-communitarian)
dialogue” is the key to any
peaceful coexistence, we should never forget that the fight for
religious
freedom and freedom of conscience was from the start a fight against
the
religious supremacy of the established churches (at
that time in the form of compulsory
uniformity and intolerance), and only in the end a fight against the
scourge of
state atheism in communist counties or against Islamic fundamentalism.
The
«wall of separation between church and state»
(Thomas Jefferson, 1802) is even
today the most secure and effective tool to protect the freedom of
conscience
of each single individual and peaceful coexistence in our inherently
and
irreversibly plural societies.
On the contrary, today many religious leaders
demand a “public
recognition” on the part of our states and of the EU itself.
That is almost
wherever in Europe the demand of Muslim leaders. And other established
religions, first of all the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, are thus
trying to
seize the opportunity to ask for a renewed “public
role” of all religions, that
would inevitably confine non-believers and maverick believers
(today’s
dissenters, as they were called in 17th century
England) in the
position of second class citizens, like the Dhimmis in the Ottoman
Empire; and
trying to impose on all of us, by law, personal behaviours only
consistent with
a faith many of us do not share, and even many more do not share in its
official
interpretation, as it is the case of tens of millions of Catholics in
Europe.
An even more open threat to open societies
comes from those
populist politicians who want no “religious
dialogue” at all, but use the
autochthonous religion, or whatever other item they find in their
country’s
real or invented “tradition”, as tools to exclude
people of other religion, and
the autochthonous individualists alike, from their regressive dream of
a
society they would like to make more cohesive and intolerant through a
renewed
authoritarian imposition of some kind of anthropological uniformity. Christianity is for them nothing more than an
ideological weapon to be brandished against minorities, and/or against
immigrants.
Claims for national identities, or for a European identity, based upon a single religion, or indeed on one single culture or tradition, are never candid, innocent claims: what is claimed is an exegetic principle, a criterion to be implemented in the interpretation of the entire system of law, creating first and second class citizens. The biggest challenge of the present time is the paradoxical erosion of the most precious historical values typical of our common civic identity, largely part of a cultural acquis communautaire, by populist politicians, who pose as the keepers of our “real” identity and tradition, and would like to cage all of us into closed homogeneous and mutually hostile communitarian enclosures, the smaller and the more controlled the better.
5) Europe, a Liberal Voice in the
Global World
I mentioned that modern liberalism was not
built upon the vacuum, but
upon some cultural depositories that were the heritage of previous
periods of
our history. In his celebrated Funeral Oration, Pericles praised
«The freedom
we enjoy in our government – in Athens, he meant –
extends also to our ordinary
life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each
other, we do
not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he
likes...»
And his unlucky successor Nicias mentioned «the unfettered
discretion allowed
[in Athens] to all to live as they pleased».
Nicias’s Athens was defeated by
the tyrants of Syracuse. It took more than 2000 years for individual
freedom to
reappear, after that brief ancient epiphany, in the Netherlands, in
England, in
America, in France, now supported by a new robust individualist
anthropology
and a much more developed system of law; but it took three more
centuries to re-take
roots, after the two attempted suicides of Europe in the 20th
century,
in our countries, and in our European Union.
The liberals’ task is not only to
defend, but to enhance and to expand
those achievements. And to defend, strengthen and democratise and
legitimise that
European Union that is for us, in the global world, the only possible
tool
allowing us to have a say in a world where all our old individual
nation states
no longer have a voice strong enough to be remarked and taken into
account, and
strong enough to effectively stand for liberal principles, together
with
the like-minded
voices in today’s
international community.
Remember: like-minded voices are really not
numberless in today’s global
world.
(Audio file of the Parenzo/Poreč event here)
(Video of the Santiago event here )
.