By Dr Andrew Kania
It was George Orwell who in Animal Farm gave us the wonderful turn of phrase: “All men are created equal but some are more equal than others.”
Orwell, in writing these words, was of course playing on the lines that Thomas Jefferson penned in the United States Declaration of Independence.
True, God has created all of us equal, as Jefferson reminds us in the Declaration, but our governments, as Orwell ironically notes, can make the application of this act of creation, a greater or lesser reality, depending upon the underlying paradigm on which the particular government is based.
In a modern world that grows ever so much smaller due to the breakthroughs of communication and transportation that have taken place over the last century and a half, we notice each time we turn on the news media the veritable gamut that exists between nations with regard levels of freedom of speech and the presumed rights: “to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
Generally speaking we are in truth closer to one another geographically than we are in terms of the individual rights and liberties that our various governments profess and are willing to endow us.
Nothing better exemplified this than, when a few weeks ago, the Federal Government handed down its budget.
Across the Australian nation, protests spilled out into the streets of our state capitals. Such is our political system that rather than seeing protests as a symptom of a nation losing control, protestation is viewed as a key component of a living democracy; for to quote Voltaire: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it”.
Yet this being said, travelling from our nation by plane, we can in but a few hours be in a society, where stonings still occur, brought about by the ‘crime’ of having a variant religious opinion; and a short while later we can also be in a nation that excludes an individual from basic education because of gender, and even seeks to murder someone if they choose to question such a prohibition.
Freedom, and human rights, for all the power these words engender, it would seem, are very much fluid commodities.
In his seminal text of 1944, The Road to Freedom, Friedrich A von Hayek, spoke about the various ‘isms’ that challenged humanity during the early to middle twentieth century – political movements such as fascism, national socialism, and communism.
In a chapter titled, “The Great Utopia”, Hayek noted that: “The French writers who laid the foundations of modern socialism had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong dictatorial government.
To them socialism meant an attempt to “terminate the revolution” by a deliberate reorganisation of society on hierarchical lines and by the imposition of a coercive “spiritual power”.
Where freedom was concerned, the founders of socialism made no bones about their intentions.
Freedom of thought they regarded as the root-evil of nineteenth century society, and the first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, even predicted that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be “treated as cattle” (Hayek, 1944, p 76).
Both national socialism and communism as experimented last century, sought to strangle the rights of the individual – so as to enhance the perceived greater ‘good’ for the greatest number.
But as Hayek attests, individuality, is in fact a sign of education and intelligence – and to stamp this out, is the fastest means of stagnating a society (cf Hayek, 1944, p 160).
The adage runs – if all people are thinking the same, then at least one person is not thinking.
Hence the strength of democracy is that it allows for a disparity of opinion; and this difference can only bring about strength – for a breadth of ideas means that human intelligence is being used to its optimum – even if we do not appreciate being contradicted.
The governments of Hitler and Stalin, assumed that they knew best what was the greater good, even dictating how they thought the individual should spend their leisure time, let alone their labouring hours (cf Fn 6: Hayek, 1944, p 132).
Hayek remarks that these ‘isms’ suffocated creativity – and in creativity’s place was embraced the lowest common moral denominator, which lives in that sphere known as basic instinct.
As long as basic instinct is promulgated and held up as the highest possible good, people will consider themselves animals and not dare to visualise themselves as being made in the image and likeness of God; hence another truism from Orwell: “Four legs good, two legs bad.” (That is of course until some in power begin to understand the benefits of secretly standing on two legs, after all the rest have been forced to crawl!).
The danger of both communism and national socialism, Hayek says, is that the spirit of the human person, and what it means to be human, is given a bench-mark that the majority will accept, but not to which many hope to aspire as an end-goal.
Thus nothing is more dangerous to totalitarianism than free thought; and that is why the history of totalitarianism is punctuated with the martyrdom of intellectuals.
Hayek quotes Thomas Hobbes, where the author of Leviathan quite poignantly points out that the first step toward suppressing liberty is by suppressing the teaching of the classics, for the classics promote free thought.
Books have to be burned at the beginning of each totalitarian regime, and educators silenced, so that people cease asking the large questions.
How can an intolerant government allow for the diversity of opinion? It cannot – for soon it will not exist.
An intellectual or free thinker is the perennial critic; and therefore he or she must be stamped out.
The dictator uses propaganda and simple messages to convince the apathetic majority, that the not so silent minority, should be silenced.
As such, Hayek warns his reader of the template used by the dictator to win over nations.
He writes: “he will be able to obtain the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently.
It will be those whose vague and imperfectly formed ideas are easily swayed and whose passions and emotions are readily aroused who will thus swell the ranks of the totalitarian party” (Hayek, 1944, p 160).
The Catholic Church in its Social Doctrine speaks a good deal about the freedom of the human person.
In fact the Church states unequivocally that: “The human person cannot and must not be manipulated by social, economic or political structures, because every person has the freedom to direct himself towards his ultimate end.
On the other hand, every cultural social, economic and political accomplishment, in which the social nature of the person and his activity of transforming the universe are brought about in history, must always be considered in the context of its relative and provisional reality, because “the form of this world is passing away” (1 Cor 7: 31, Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Doctrine of the Church, 2009, p 24).
This noted, Catholic idealism must be honed so as to speak with prescient force to the reality of our age.
Yet further, we must not only speak within the safe confines of our Churches to the converted – but must engage society as a whole.
Our message in promulgating freedom and human rights – must not only be verbal, but more importantly be enacted.
Hence a Catholic is not only called to prayer – but also called to action.
The German poet and dramatist, Goethe, wrote in Faust that the only person who earns his or her freedom is that individual who daily is willing to fight for it.
But how many people are willing to risk life, limb and reputation for ideals? Are not the majority concerned and contented with the basic instinct of survival, and is not survival best found in the collective warmth of the herd? After Stalin died, Khruschev spoke out at a government assembly against Stalin’s regime.
From out of the crowd a voice called to Khruschev: “Yes Comrade Khruschev, but where were you when Stalin was perpetrating these crimes?” Khruschev replied over the microphone: “Who said that?” There was no response. He then calmly replied: “Well I was in exactly the same place that you are now!”
Political freedoms are hard won – and should never be treated glibly and taken for granted; but it is the sad truth, that as we only appreciate good health, when we become ill, so we only appreciate our civil rights fully, when we begin to lose them. Let us not require such a harsh lesson to acknowledge the wisdom of Goethe, by waking us out of a hedonistic stupor.
We live in a nation vastly distinct from most others – for the level of political freedoms offered. It is of course far from a perfect society, because it comprises fallible material – the human person. Yet this said, we have freedoms and rights.
Our duty as educated citizens is to preserve this freedom, and the best way by which to do this, is to be actively involved, in our communities; to listen, to learn, to teach the next generation to think – and if necessary – agitate; otherwise we will end up like Saint-Simon’s cattle – part of a mindless herd, grazing on basic instinct.