Twentieth-century philosopher Isaiah Berlin (1909–97) suggested when people talk about political freedom they have two concepts in mind and he named them as positive freedom and negative freedom.
HaveeruOnline reports women working at the Immigrations Department have been allowed to wear head scarf as of today. Haveeru also quoted Shafiu – an official from that department - saying; “We have allowed wearing head scarf within uniform in the interest of our employeesâ€.
I wondered; “how was it allowed Shafiu and his department to ban head scarf within uniforms of Immigration Department?â€. “Why does Shafiu in his interview thought that they have done a flavor to the employees?†Don’t the employees have the right to wear the head scarf? ‘Right’ they sure had but the ‘freedom’ was interfered.
‘Freedom from interference’ is how Berlin defines the negative freedom. If, although a woman thinks it is good to wear head scarf, she may prefer not to do so, she is not thereby rendered less free. Freedom is the opportunity to act, not action itself. Berlin reinforces that only restrictions imposed by other people, not nature, affect political freedom.
So much for the rational reasoning but then there is the deserving respect for the prevailing belief of the society – the religion. Wearing the head scarf is a religious requirement for muslin women who decide to wear and not to wear. How do we decide to provide the freedom ‘not to follow’ some practice and the freedom ‘to follow’ something? How did immigrations department come to the decision to provide the freedom not to wear the head scarf and deprive the freedom to wear the head scarf?
Interests of wider society and nation, sure, do and aught come into context when boundaries of freedom get chartered in every country. In that context, is it not the interest of the society to provide women – half of the society - the freedom to practice their religion? Should it not be in national interest to promote the values of our belief internally and externally? Most developed nations appear to work to something to that effect.
President Gayyoom arguing, former AG, Dr Hassan Saeed recently said that that freedom of expression has been provided under his reform agenda unlimitedly. The same question came to my mind listening to his speech. How did he decide to interfere with freedom of expression and how does he define freedom now when he provide it?
Positive freedom, put simply is freedom to do something rather than freedom from interference. Positive freedom is a matter of what you can actually do. All sorts of doors may be open, giving you a large amount of negative freedom, and yet you might find that there are still obstacles to taking full advantage of your opportunities.
The notion of positive freedom may rely on the belief that the self can be split into a higher and a lower self, and that the higher or rational self’s priorities should be encouraged to overcome the lower, less rational self’s inclinations: the passing desires that if acted on can so upset a life plan. The higher self has desires for what will make the individual’s life go well; it wishes to pursue worthwhile and noble goals.
Then the question is if the government had provided the freedom to wear the head scarf, will it the decisions of women, as is now, instead of being forced by elders and men? With the present experiences in mind, can we come to the conclusion we could have practiced freedom of expression responsibly, if we had it back in those days?
Rationality, belief, interests of society and the nation may come at the top of how we decide how to define the borders of freedom for our country. But the ability of individuals seems to override all of that and perhaps timing also has something to do with that.
We all could arguably tell what freedoms we need; I would rather like to know “howâ€. How should the rightful freedoms of a Maldivian citizen be defined?
16 responses so far ↓
Hameed // Sep 7, 2007 at 9:05 am
I know onething. People’s Special Majlis cannot define our freedoms. They are not capable of anything. Do you think they can define?
Ameer // Sep 7, 2007 at 1:04 pm
I agree with you, Hameed. 100% Correct.
Mohamed Hilmy // Sep 7, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Since our politicians are talking of taking our country towards a liberal democracy, let’s follow the American model- since we too are a republic. Their founding fathers drafted the US Constitution, one of the finest documents in legal history.
Let’s keep it simple. Convene the special majlis. Their mandate to finalise the draft of the constitution together with Bill of Rights in one marathon convention following the liberal democracy’s features of constitutional protections of individual rights from government power. They will have experts and consultants available on call, should such services be required.
The honourable members will be provided with meals and sleeping arrangemnts and medical treatment during the period of work. They are to continue working with intermittent breaks for exercise, rest and sleep until the job is complete.
Once that is done then our rights and freedoms will be enshrined in the constitution following the liberal democratic model- rights to due process, privacy, property and equality before the law, and freedoms of speech, assembly and religion.
If the freedom of religion cannot be given for any reason, then our state can never have a liberal democracy as practised in the west and we should look for some other model.
ahmed // Sep 7, 2007 at 6:00 pm
A mix of thoughts. If it is about people and their ability, are we capable now?
Assad // Sep 7, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Yes, If freedom is this difficult to understand, it is not a simple thing.
I don’t know how to define but we have to define. What you think?
Hilath // Sep 8, 2007 at 5:37 am
Now you know why freedom of religion and freedom of belief has to be allowed in Maldives when the constitution is amended. Places like Malaysia have Islam as their state religion but they practise secular policies by allowing people to choose what religion they want to believe in. That is how even in the United States people are freely and more protectively practising Islam. If the state and religion is not separated, the government of the day will abuse religious rights of the people. For instance, have we forgotten how hair from Sheikh Fareed’s beard was removed? Years ago the government passed a law which says that the abaya cannot be worn. Though that law is still in force, the government under pressure now ignores it and allows people to wear the face-covering veil. Islam says there is no compulsion in religion; therefore, it is against Islam that the government should force all Maldivians to be Muslims. And Maldives becoming 100 percent Islamic country is not legitimate; like the Fascist Nazi regimes, the Dhivehi Buddhist monks were killed on the orders of the Sultan then to make Maldives 100 percent Islamic. This is an atrocity against humanity. Those murdered victims could even have been my relatives. If people learn to “live and let live” I am sure Maldives will be a much safer and happier place where everybody respects the rights and happinesses of our fellow countrymen.
varuvaa // Sep 8, 2007 at 7:21 am
Freedom cannot be achieved or defined if you don’t work for it specially in a
dictatorshiplike the current regime. even our consitution guarantees the freedom of expresson and assembly. but can we enjoy it? it’s always Gayyoom to define eventhough your rights are clearly stated in your consitutionShihab // Sep 8, 2007 at 4:27 pm
The rightful freedoms of a Maldivian should be defined in our Constitution. I agree with Mhilmy in this instance.
Our “ultra reformist” representatives need to move on from nitty gritties like the 29 members and whether Maumoon will be President or not. But then they would argue that without those being sorted out that the freedoms cannot even be defined properly, let alone practised.
It would be like trying to convince a Muslim that Jesus is indeed God, or to a Christian that there is no God but Allah.
I really think that the first step is one that should allow for the education of the masses on what democracy is what a liberal democracy means. Yet, it would be difficult to impress upon a people who have know nothing else except to believe that their rulers are next to divine!
ra:zuwa: // Sep 11, 2007 at 3:19 am
Dear Hameed, I think Special Majlis can do it. What I don’t really know is what will it take for them to start having constructive dialogues - instead of petty arguments. Like we all are, we got to appreciate the fact that too are learning. They too have to accept it!
ra:zuwa: // Sep 11, 2007 at 3:21 am
Thank you for the comment Ameer. I am still hopeful. I wish that some group start a society or some sort of lobbying group - to address peoples concerns more clearly.
ra:zuwa: // Sep 11, 2007 at 3:25 am
Thank you Hilmy, I wonder at this stage does it matter what type of democracy that come up with, as long as it is ‘proper democracy’?
ra:zuwa: // Sep 11, 2007 at 3:28 am
Dear Ahmed, What I think is that we may not be fully capable but we are capable enough to begin the work. I guess there are a lot of capabilities you can only learn by doing it.
ra:zuwa: // Sep 11, 2007 at 3:30 am
You are right Assad. We have to define it. We have waited without dealing with difficult question for too long.
I is not easy, we know that but we cannot wait think someone will do the thinking for us. We have to define it.
ra:zuwa: // Sep 11, 2007 at 3:40 am
Dear Hilath, Thank you for the comment,
Your statement “..Maldives becoming 100 percent Islamic country is not legitimate ..” rises the question who decides what is legitimate for every country?
The world to my knowledge is still in its infancy in implementing international legal frameworks. No better proof that UN is a dictatorship of a six countries.
Every other nation as decide rights and implemented them according to their needs - there is a prison in Quba for those US do not like to give any legal rights.
Yes, certainly. We should re-create our counties ideas but I think according to what serves best to our conscience.
ra:zuwa: // Sep 11, 2007 at 3:46 am
Thank you Varuvaa, You are right, we have been deprived off many rights as a citizen. There is another side to this thinking of ours. Did any government in any country make the country a democracy? I think people would earn their own freedoms and democracy?
Someone said; “every generation should earn their own freedoms” Could it be that Maldivians always had what we asked, are continually having what we ask for but to that extend we have time, resources and ability to ask for?
ra:zuwa: // Sep 11, 2007 at 4:59 am
Thank you Shihab. About people assuming the leaders are divine; recent happenings in Maldives suggest me that all politicians new and old whenever they hold a position there is a tendency in them to demand to the public that they are sacred and should not be criticised.
Can it be a problem in all of us?
Leave a Comment