Liberty | ISC Class 11 Political Science Notes

This note covers liberty: its meaning as the absence of external constraints and as the conditions for self-development, why individuals and societies value it, the idea of Swaraj, the sources of constraints, why some constraints are needed, the harm principle, the negative and positive dimensions of liberty, the civil, political and economic kinds of liberty, how the Indian Constitution protects liberty, and freedom of expression.

What does liberty mean?

Liberty, or freedom, is a central idea of political theory. At its simplest, freedom means the absence of constraints. A person is free when he or she is not subject to external controls or coercion and is able to make independent decisions and act in an autonomous way.

This is only one dimension of freedom. Freedom is also about expanding the ability of people to express themselves freely and develop their potential. In this second sense, freedom is the condition in which people can develop their creativity and capabilities, be it in sports, science, art, music or exploration.

Both aspects matter. A free society is one that enables all its members to develop their potential with the minimum of social constraints. Freedom is valued because it allows us to make choices and to exercise our judgement, using our own powers of reason.

Definition: Liberty. Liberty is the absence of unjustified external constraints on a person, together with the presence of conditions in which the person can develop his or her talents and make meaningful choices.

Because no one living in society can enjoy a total absence of constraints, the study of liberty asks a harder question: which constraints are justified and which should be removed.

Answering it means looking closely at the relationship between the individual and the society, community or state in which he or she lives.

Why do individuals and societies value liberty?

Human history is full of people and communities dominated, enslaved or exploited by more powerful groups, and of heroic struggles against such domination.

In its essence, the struggle for freedom is the desire of people to be in control of their own lives and destinies. Not just individuals but whole societies value their independence and wish to protect their culture and future.

Nelson Mandela's autobiography is titled Long Walk to Freedom. It describes the struggle against the apartheid regime in South Africa, whose constraints discriminated between citizens by race: Black people were bundled into townships, denied easy movement about the country and even denied a free choice of whom to marry.

For this freedom, Mandela spent twenty-seven years of his life in jail, often in solitary confinement.

Aung San Suu Kyi, inspired by Gandhiji's thoughts on non-violence, remained under house arrest in Myanmar and could not visit her dying husband in England for fear of not being allowed back. Her book of essays is titled Freedom from Fear.

"for me real freedom is freedom from fear and unless you can live free from fear you cannot live a dignified human life"
Aung San Suu Kyi

Her words suggest that a dignified life requires us to overcome fear of authority, of our community and of ridicule, so that we can speak our mind.

The same ideal of freedom was at the centre of India's national struggle and the struggles of the peoples of Asia and Africa against British, French and Portuguese colonialism.

What is Swaraj, and how is it related to liberty?

A concept close to freedom in Indian political thought is Swaraj. The word joins Swa (Self) and Raj (Rule), so it can mean both the rule of the self and rule over the self.

In the freedom struggle, Swaraj referred to freedom as a constitutional and political demand, and as a value at the social and collective level. That is why it became a rallying cry, inspiring Tilak's famous statement: "Swaraj is my birth right and I shall have it."

Mahatma Gandhi highlighted Swaraj as rule over the self in his work Hind Swaraj, written in 1909, where he states, "It is Swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves".

For Gandhi, Swaraj was not just freedom but liberation: redeeming one's self-respect, self-responsibility and capacity for self-realisation from institutions that dehumanise people.

Gandhiji believed that the development that follows would liberate both individual and collective potentialities, guided by the principle of justice. Swaraj therefore links personal freedom with the freedom of the community, an idea that remains as relevant in the twenty-first century as it was in 1909.

Where do constraints on liberty come from?

Restrictions on freedom may come from domination and external controls. They may be imposed by force, or by a government through laws that embody the power of the rulers over the people.

This was the form of constraint that colonial rulers imposed on their subjects, and that the system of apartheid imposed in South Africa.

Some form of government may be inevitable, but if the government is democratic, citizens retain some control over their rulers. That is why democratic government is considered an important means of protecting the freedom of the people.

Constraints can also come from social inequality, of the kind found in the caste system, and from extreme economic inequality. A person who is formally free may still be unable to act on his or her choices because of caste barriers or poverty.

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose described freedom as "all round freedom", for the individual and society, rich and poor, men and women.

In his presidential address to a students' conference at Lahore on 19 October 1929, he said this freedom implied not only emancipation from political bondage but also equal distribution of wealth, the abolition of caste barriers and the destruction of communalism and religious intolerance.

Why does a free society still need some constraints?

We cannot live in a world without constraints, or society would descend into chaos. People hold different ideas, have conflicting ambitions and compete for scarce resources.

Disputes over parking spaces, land or whether a film should be screened can turn into conflict and even violence. Every society therefore needs mechanisms to control violence and settle disputes.

Even a free society requires that we respect differences of views, opinions and beliefs. When one group tries to impose its views on another, or to bully and harass people into conforming, legal and political restraints are needed so that differences can be debated without coercion.

The important question is which constraints are necessary and justifiable, what kind of external authority may justifiably impose them, and whether some areas of life should be left free of all external constraint.

In India's constitutional discussions, justifiable constraints are called reasonable restrictions. A restriction must be capable of being defended by reason, not excessive and not out of proportion to the action restricted; otherwise it damages the general condition of freedom. Imposing restrictions must never become a habit.

What is the harm principle?

John Stuart Mill addressed the limits of constraint in his essay On Liberty. In political theory his answer is called the harm principle.

"the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
J. S. Mill, On Liberty

Mill distinguished self-regarding actions, whose consequences fall only on the person acting, from other-regarding actions, which also have consequences for others. With self-regarding actions, the state or any other external authority has no business to interfere. With actions that may harm others, there is some case for interference.

Because freedom is so crucial for a dignified life, Mill held that it should be constrained only when the harm is serious. For minor harm he recommended only social disapproval, not the force of law.

Playing loud music in an apartment building, for example, should draw the disapproval of neighbours, not the police.

Applying the harm principle to an action involves a clear sequence of questions:

1. Ask whether the action affects only the person doing it (self-regarding) or also affects others (other-regarding).
2. If it is self-regarding, leave it free of interference by the state or any other authority.
3. If it is other-regarding, judge whether the harm to definite individuals is serious or minor.
4. For minor harm, rely on social disapproval rather than legal punishment.
5. For serious harm, allow legal constraint, but keep the penalty in proportion so that it does not destroy freedom itself.

A hate campaign, for instance, causes serious harm to the freedom of others and may be restrained. Even then, the constraint must not be so severe that it destroys freedom: restricting public meetings may be justified where life imprisonment would not be.

What are the negative and positive dimensions of liberty?

The two aspects of freedom described earlier, the absence of external constraints and the expansion of opportunities to express oneself, are called negative liberty and positive liberty in political theory.

Negative liberty seeks to define and defend an area in which the individual is inviolable, where he or she can "do, be or become" whatever he or she wishes.

This is a minimum area of non-interference that no external authority may enter. Its existence recognises that human dignity needs a space where a person can act unobstructed by others.

Negative liberty answers the question "Over what area am I the master?" It explains the idea of freedom from.

How big this area should be is a matter of continuing debate, since the bigger the area of non-interference, the more the freedom; if it is too small, human dignity is compromised.

Positive liberty answers a different question, "Who governs me?", to which the ideal answer is "I govern myself". It explains the idea of freedom to. Its tradition can be traced to Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Gandhi and Aurobindo.

Positive liberty looks at the relationship between the individual and society and tries to improve social conditions so that there are fewer constraints on the development of the individual personality.

The individual is like a flower that blossoms only when the soil is fertile, the sun gentle and the water adequate.

To develop his or her capability, a person needs enabling conditions in the material, political and social domains: freedom from poverty and unemployment, a chance to take part in decision making so that laws reflect his or her choices, and access to education and the opportunities needed to lead a reasonably good life.

Negative versus positive liberty: how do they differ?

The two dimensions usually go together and support each other, but they start from different questions and look at different things. Positive liberty holds that one can be free only in society, not outside it, while negative liberty is concerned only with the protected area of non-interference.

Note: Positive liberty is not always benign. Tyrants have sometimes justified their rule by invoking arguments of positive liberty, claiming to know what people "really" need. This is one reason why negative liberty keeps defending a minimum area that no authority may enter.

What are the kinds of liberty?

Besides its two dimensions, liberty is often classified by the area of life in which it operates. Three kinds are commonly distinguished: civil, political and economic liberty.

Civil liberty is the freedom a person enjoys as a member of society in everyday life: freedom of the person, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of movement, freedom of religion and freedom to form associations.

These freedoms are recognised and protected by the law of the state, which also restrains individuals and groups who would violate them.

Political liberty is the freedom to take an active part in the political life of the state: the right to vote, to contest elections, to hold public office, and to criticise the government and form political parties.

It is closely tied to democracy, because it lets citizens keep some control over their rulers.

Economic liberty is freedom from want and insecurity in earning a living. The British political thinker Harold Laski described it as security and the opportunity to find reasonable significance in earning one's daily bread. It requires freedom from unemployment and extreme poverty and a fair chance to choose one's work.

The three kinds depend on one another. Political liberty means little to a person crushed by poverty, which is why the positive dimension of liberty stresses the economic and social conditions in which civil and political freedoms can actually be used.

How does the Indian Constitution protect liberty?

The Indian Constitution protects liberty as a set of Fundamental Rights. Article 19 guarantees citizens the freedoms of speech and expression, of peaceful assembly without arms, of forming associations or unions, of moving freely and residing anywhere in India, and of practising any profession, occupation, trade or business.

These freedoms are not absolute. The Constitution allows the state to impose reasonable restrictions on them on grounds such as public order, morality and the security of the state. This is the constitutional form of the idea that constraints must be justifiable and proportionate.

Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that such a procedure must itself be fair, just and reasonable, which widened the protection of personal liberty.

Political liberty is secured through universal adult franchise under Article 326, which gives every adult citizen the right to vote.

Economic liberty is pursued less through rights the courts enforce than through the state's duty to promote welfare, reduce inequality and widen opportunity, in line with the positive dimension of liberty.

Why does freedom of expression deserve special protection?

Freedom of expression is widely considered to belong to the minimum area of non-interference. Society must be willing to bear some inconvenience to protect it. The statement often attributed to Voltaire captures the commitment it demands:

"I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it."
Attributed to Voltaire

Demands to ban books, plays and films are common. Deepa Mehta's film about widows in Varanasi could not be made there after protests and was made elsewhere.

Similarly, Aubrey Menon's Ramayana Retold and Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses were banned after protests. Banning meets an immediate demand but harms freedom in the long run, because a habit of banning develops.

In On Liberty, Mill gave four reasons why even ideas that appear false should be freely expressed:

1. No idea is completely false; what seems false has an element of truth that would be lost if it were banned.
2. Truth does not emerge by itself; it emerges only through the conflict of opposing views.
3. This conflict of ideas has continuing value, because truth otherwise risks becoming an unthinking cliche.
4. We cannot be sure that what we consider true is actually true; ideas once suppressed as false have later turned out to be true.

Constraints backed by organised religious or cultural authority, or by the might of the state, restrict freedom in ways that are hard to fight.

But restrictions a person accepts willingly, for example to pursue his or her goals, do not limit freedom in the same way.

Freedom also brings responsibility for one's choices, which has to be built through education and the cultivation of judgement.

Glossary

• Liberty: the absence of unjustified external constraints together with conditions that allow a person to develop his or her potential.
• Swaraj: self-rule; both the rule of the self and rule over the self, a rallying cry of India's freedom struggle.
• Harm principle: J. S. Mill's principle that power may rightfully be used over a person, against his will, only to prevent harm to others.
• Self-regarding action: an action whose consequences fall only on the person acting.
• Other-regarding action: an action that also has consequences for other people.
• Negative liberty: freedom from external interference within a protected minimum area of non-interference.
• Positive liberty: freedom to develop oneself and govern oneself, supported by enabling social conditions.
• Reasonable restriction: a limit on a freedom that can be defended by reason and is not excessive or out of proportion.
• Civil liberty: the everyday freedoms of a person in society, such as speech, movement and religion, protected by law.
• Political liberty: the freedom to take part in government, such as voting and contesting elections.
• Economic liberty: security and opportunity in earning a livelihood, free from want and unemployment.
• Freedom of expression: the freedom to hold and express opinions, regarded as part of the minimum area of non-interference.

Common errors and misconceptions

• Misconception: liberty means the total absence of all restrictions. Correct: no one in society can enjoy a total absence of constraints; liberty means the absence of unjustified constraints and the presence of conditions for self-development.
• Misconception: Mill's harm principle allows the state to punish any action that inconveniences others. Correct: only serious harm justifies the force of law; minor harm, such as loud music, deserves only social disapproval.
• Misconception: negative and positive liberty are opposed, so a society must choose one. Correct: they usually go together and support each other, though positive liberty can be misused by tyrants.
• Misconception: negative liberty is "freedom to" and positive liberty is "freedom from". Correct: negative liberty is freedom from interference; positive liberty is freedom to develop and govern oneself.
• Misconception: the freedoms in Article 19 are absolute. Correct: the state may impose reasonable restrictions on them on grounds such as public order and the security of the state.
• Misconception: accepting any rule always reduces one's freedom. Correct: restrictions a person accepts willingly, without coercion, to pursue his or her own goals do not curtail freedom in the same way.

Exam-style questions with model answers

Q1. Name the thinker who stated the harm principle and the work in which he set it out. [1 mark]

1. John Stuart Mill, in his essay On Liberty.

Q2. Distinguish between self-regarding and other-regarding actions. [2 marks]

1. Self-regarding actions have consequences only for the person acting, so no external authority should interfere with them.
2. Other-regarding actions also have consequences for others, so interference may be justified if they cause serious harm.

Q3. What is meant by Swaraj? State its two meanings. [2 marks]

1. Swaraj combines Swa (Self) and Raj (Rule) and means self-rule.
2. It means both the rule of the self, as a political demand in the freedom struggle, and rule over the self, which Gandhi stressed in Hind Swaraj.

Q4. Explain the negative and positive dimensions of liberty. [4 marks]

1. Negative liberty defends a minimum area of non-interference in which a person can do, be or become what he or she wishes.
2. It answers the question "Over what area am I the master?" and expresses "freedom from".
3. Positive liberty is concerned with the conditions in society that enable a person to develop, such as freedom from poverty, participation in decisions and access to education.
4. It answers "Who governs me?" with "I govern myself" and expresses "freedom to".

Q5. Describe civil, political and economic liberty with one example of each. [4 marks]

1. Civil liberty is the everyday freedom of a person in society, protected by law; for example, freedom of speech or of religion.
2. Political liberty is the freedom to take part in government; for example, the right to vote and to contest elections.
3. Economic liberty is security and opportunity in earning a livelihood; for example, freedom from unemployment and want.
4. The three depend on one another, since political liberty means little to a person crushed by poverty.

Q6. "Constraints are necessary for liberty." Discuss with reference to the harm principle and reasonable restrictions. [8 marks]

1. No one in society can enjoy a total absence of constraints; without some rules society would descend into chaos.
2. People have conflicting views, ambitions and interests, so every society needs ways to control violence and settle disputes.
3. Constraints also protect freedom, for example by preventing one group from bullying another into conformity.
4. Mill's harm principle limits constraint to cases where an action harms others; self-regarding actions should be left free.
5. Even for other-regarding actions, only serious harm justifies legal constraint, while minor harm deserves social disapproval.
6. Penalties must be proportionate, so that restraining a hate campaign does not destroy freedom itself.
7. The Indian Constitution expresses this through reasonable restrictions on the freedoms in Article 19, which must be defensible by reason and not excessive.
8. Constraints are therefore necessary, but only when they are justified, proportionate and not imposed out of habit.

Q7. Give J. S. Mill's four reasons for defending freedom of expression. [4 marks]

1. No idea is completely false, so banning an idea loses the element of truth it contains.
2. Truth emerges only through the conflict of opposing views.
3. That conflict keeps truth from becoming an unthinking cliche.
4. We cannot be sure that what we think true is true; suppressed ideas have later proved correct.

Key takeaways

• Liberty means both the absence of unjustified external constraints and the presence of conditions in which people can develop their potential.
• The struggles of Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi show how deeply individuals and societies value freedom.
• Swaraj means both rule of the self and rule over the self; Gandhi stressed the second in Hind Swaraj (1909).
• Constraints come from domination by rulers and from social and economic inequality such as caste and poverty.
• Some constraints are necessary, but they must be justified; in India they take the form of reasonable restrictions.
• Mill's harm principle allows legal constraint only on other-regarding actions that cause serious harm.
• Negative liberty is "freedom from" interference in a minimum protected area; positive liberty is "freedom to" develop and govern oneself.
• Civil, political and economic liberty protect everyday freedoms, participation in government and security of livelihood.
• Articles 19 and 21 protect civil liberty in India, and the Maneka Gandhi case (1978) required procedures restricting personal liberty to be fair and reasonable.
• Freedom of expression deserves special protection, for the four reasons Mill gave in On Liberty.

Test yourself

What is the simplest definition of freedom?

The absence of external constraints, so that a person is not coerced and can make independent decisions and act autonomously.

What is the title of Aung San Suu Kyi's book of essays?

Her book of essays is titled Freedom from Fear, written while she was under house arrest in Myanmar.

Which statement of Tilak used the idea of Swaraj?

Tilak declared, "Swaraj is my birth right and I shall have it", a rallying cry of the freedom struggle.

According to Mill, how should minor harm be dealt with?

Minor harm, such as loud music in a building, should meet only social disapproval, not the force of law.

Which question does negative liberty answer?

Negative liberty answers the question "Over what area am I the master?", the idea of freedom from interference.

Name two thinkers in the tradition of positive liberty.

Any two of Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Gandhi and Aurobindo, whose ideas shaped the positive liberty tradition.

What is political liberty?

The freedom to take part in government, such as voting, contesting elections and criticising the government.

What did the Supreme Court hold in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)?

That a procedure depriving a person of personal liberty under Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable.