Usually liberty is licensed by providing a few immunities called
political liberties or rights. According to John Stuart Mill, liberty can be
licensed in two ways; first by obtaining a recognition of such immunities
called political liberties or rights, which it was to be regarded as a breach
of judgment in the rules of national and international law to infringe, and
which if he did infringe, specific existence of general rebellion, was held
to be justifiable. A second, and generally a later expedient, was the
establishment of constitutional checks by which the consent of the
community or of a body of some sort,, supposed to represent its interests,
was made a necessary condition to some of the more important acts of the
governing power.
In recent centuries, in most of the countries, monarchies or other
ruling powers have been compelled to submit to basic liberties and
fundamental rights. Most of the constitutions that have been evolved
during the last two centuries provide for fundamental rights for citizens
which the ruler is supposed to respect.
During the 18th century, the democratic wind started blowing.
Time came in the progress of human affairs when man ceased to think it a
necessity of nature that their governor should be an independent power,
opposed in interest to themselves. It appeared to them much better that the
various executive authorities of the state should be elected by them, and
removable from office at their pleasure. In that way alone, it seemed, that
people could have complete security, and the powers of government could
be secured from being abused. By degrees, this new demand for elective
rule became the prominent object of the popular movements, and
superseded the previous political thought. As the struggle proceeded for
making the ruling power emanate from the periodical choice of the ruled,
some persons began to think that too much importance has been attacked
to the limitation of the powers itself. That was an excuse against rulers
whose interests were habitually opposed to those of the people. But when the rulers came to be identified with the people and their interests became
the interest and will of the nation, the rulers became effectually
responsible and trustworthy for utilisation of powers. The people became
more and more amenable to their popular leaders and were prepared to
give them more and more powers, divesting themselves of many of their
own privileges. It was presumed that their power was but the nation’s own
power, concentrated and in a from convenient for exercise. This mode of
thought was common in the last generation of European liberalism. Those
who admit any limit to what a government may do were, in those days,
brilliant exceptions among the political thinkers of the Continent. The
notion that the people have no need to limit their power over themselves,
seemed axiomatic when popular government was a thing not yet released
in practice, but such thought was disturbed by aberrations as those of the
French Revolution. Gradually, the system of democratic republic came to
occupy large portions of the earth’s surface and made itself felt as one of
the most powerful members of the community of nations. Elective and
responsible government came into ‘being, and most of the monarchies
became out of date, and even if they continued to exist for some or other
reason, the powers of the rulers were greatly limited by the mandate of the
people.
The emergence of the concept of welfare state, socialism and
communism, gave a great fillip to the strength of public opinion in all
countries. The institution of monarchy, landlordism and capitalism
suffered a severe setback. Although these concepts implied more and more
limitation on the individual’s power and freedom, they were designed to
look after the interests of the larger bulk of the populace. While the
liberties of the landlords and capitalists, which told upon the liberties of
the common masses, were thereby augmented because of their general
impact on their way of living, eradication of institutions of slavery,
serfdom, privileges of the richer classes etc. The democratic republics that
came into being conferred on the common man fundamental rights in their
constitutions, and regarded the welfare of the majority of the populace as
the main objective of their governments. The superiority of some
individuals was de-recognised and all men were to be treated as equals in
the eyes of law. The state policies were redesigned to enhance the well-
being of the common masses and guarantee to them certain minimum
standards of living. In a way, liberty was licensed with a view to provide
greater liberty to the larger masses of the people. In view of the basic contradictions in the interests of different individuals and classes in
society, regulation of human activity by certain fundamental principles-
called the Constitution – was ensured.
privileges
While the larger masses of the people enjoyed more power in the
matter of electing the leaders to run their national and state affairs, their
s were confined to their election. After the election, the leaders so
elected were given more and more powers so that they could work without
fetters and feel free to run the administration as efficiently as they could,
without serious handicaps in day-to-day functioning. Of course, the
powers of the elect were restricted in practice, owing to the next elections,
or becoming subject to regulations of impeachment. But, on the whole, the
powers of the executive have tremendously grown in the past more than
half a century. Almost half of the world is at present governed by
communist regimes where there is acute concentration of power, and day-
to-day liberties of the individuals are highly licensed. But these communist
regimes have come into existence by the popular will of the people, and
they designed to bring about scientifically rapid advance in material
achievements so necessary for raising the standard of living of the masses.
Some of the communist countries have, in actual practice, achieved good
results and the common man over there is definitely a well-to-do man in
material aspects. He may not have enough freedom of speech and
movement, but he has plenty of opportunity for his development within the
limitations imposed by the state. He may be required, by law, to be more
discreet in his public statements and speeches and behaviour but, on the
whole, he is a beneficiary of the system and finds himself much better off
than his predecessors were fifty years ago when slavery was rampant and
capitalism was brute.
Even in semi-socialist states, where there is a greater elements of
freedom for the individual than in the communist states, there are certain
limitations on individual behaviour particularly in respect of such spheres
which have a practical bearing on the economic activities in the country.
In socialist countries also, the liberty of the people is licensed to a
considerable extent, to enable the state to run political and economic
institutions in such a way that there is adequate regulation of public
activity. There are limitations on individuals in the matter of exercising
their freedom to run businesses. Industrialists can participate in the
economy in certain fields, while the state owns and runs the major part
economic activities. Although the private sector is allowed to function, the predominant role is played by the state directly. The liberty of the
individual is curtailed so as to minimize adverse effects on the common
man. But, on the whole, sufficient liberty is enjoyed by individuals in their
private life.
There is a rightful limit to the sovereignty of the individual
himself and over other individuals of the society. Though the society is
founded on a contract, there are social obligations which every individual
– every individual who receives his protection from society has to meet
owes a return for the benefit he derives. The fact of living in a society
renders it indispensable that each individual should be bound to observe
certain rules of conduct towards the rest. In a socialist society, the conduct
consists first in not injuring the interests of one another, Second, each
person enjoys his share which is fixed on some equitable principles of
labour and sacrifice in regard to running of social institutions, defending
the society or its members from injury and molestation. Since a socialist
state undertakes innumerable common activities for the good of the
society, all these need contribution of all individuals. Since a person’s
conduct affects prejudically the interests of others, the state has
jurisdiction over him and may punish him if he or she does a wrong.
Everything gets decided by the question whether the general welfare is
promoted by putting restrictions on the liberties of individuals.
In a socialist society, there is need for greater increase in
disinterested exertion to promote the good of others. In a socialist society,
education works by conviction and persuasion as well as by compulsion,
while the self-regarding virtues of individuals recede to secondary
importance. By its very definition, socialism implies the holding of the
interest of society as superior to the interests of the individuals and
accordingly, the rights and obligations of citizens towards society are
regulated and controlled by the state.
Although socialism and communism have lately come to achieve
importance and are in vogue in most of the countries, particularly in Afro-
Asian countries which won freedom during the current century,
individualistic and capitalistic systems still prevail in most of the western
countries. But the old style of capitalism and individualism does not exist
any longer. Even in free market economy countries like the United States,
the state enjoys supreme authority over the individual in all inter-
individual dealings. There is large scale legislation that has been enacted
to regulate the activities of the individuals in relation to society. No doubt. there is great individual freedom in private life in these countries as
compared to socialist and communist countries; yet, there is adequate
regulation in the field of industries and business, particularly where the
relationship between the employers and employees is involved. In the
USA, since the Second World War, the public sector has expanded
tremendously, partly owing to the necessity of larger defence allocation
and space exploration. In the United States, government is the largest
employer with almost nearly half of its total employed under its charge.
Even the remaining employees working in the private sector are provided
adequate protection by the State through necessary legal provisions.
Industrialists are required to provide minimum amenities to their
employees and workers in the matter of health, education, accommodation
and other facilities. Even the salary scales are usually determined by the
Government in consultation with the trade unions and labour unions that
have become an all-pervading source of influence on business dealings and
industrial relations.
Such being the position in different types of systems that exist in
the world today, it is inevitable that there should be some sort of licensing
of individual liberty. Although in socialist and communist countries there
is a tendency for the elected governments to proceed towards dictatorship
of some sort, such exercise of supreme authority is necessitated by the
very system which can provide efficient administration for their respective
systems.