The freedom of the pike is death to the minnows

In philosophy, freedom is usually examined as a property of the will. It is as an ethical ideal or normative principle, perhaps as the most vital such principle. In its simplest sense, freedom means to do as one wishes or act as one chooses. As John Locke defined it, it is the freedom to life, freedom, and property.

Only anarchists, who reject all forms of political authority as unnecessary and undesirable, are prepared to endorse unlimited freedom. A license is agreed as a necessary vice. The question remains is regarding which freedoms are we willing to approve, and which ones are we justified in curtailing.

John Stuart Mill departed from utilitarianism and recognized individuality, proposing a clear distinction between ‘self-regarding’ actions and ‘other regarding’ actions. When harm is involved, then a license is necessary. Which begs the question: what is harm? Physical or moral?

It is argued that governments should similarly be restricted to a ‘minimal’ role, amounting in practice to little more than the maintenance of domestic order and personal security. This vision is shared by many liberals and neoliberals, in what is known as negative liberty. For this reason, advocates of negative freedom have usually supported the minimal state.

In a famous essay first published in 1958, Isaiah Berlin referred to negative liberty and positive liberty. The reason for using these labels is that in the first case liberty seems to be a mere absence of something, whereas in the second case it seems to require the presence of something. Negative freedom is freedom of choice: the freedom of the consumer to choose what to buy, the freedom of the worker to choose a job or profession, the freedom of a producer to choose what to make and who to employ. Positive freedom however polices restrictions to impediments to freedom. It helps citizens help themselves to be free.

In light of the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict, can the question of negative and positive liberty be used as an excused that justified Kremlin’s invasion of its neighbour? Can the rhetoric of freeing a nation that is denied political and jurisdictional rapprochement with its soviet predecessor, and freeing its people from neo-liberal abuse and modern enslavement be employed as philosophical notions of a nation that reminisces about a glorious past?

The contested concept of freedom lies at the heart of the issue. Whichever band one decides to side, neither is fully observing the core of freedom: people’s choice. The moment that freedom was delegated to a higher power, its strength has been muzzled and blended into different shades of freedom. At present, negative or positive, Ukrainians are suffering the exploitation of “freedom”: freedom to join the free world, or freedom to join the free nation. Ironically, they are not offered the freedom to explore any other option.

Fourth Face of Power

 

Politics is power. Quite simply, power is politics, politics is power. As Ball notes, `power is arguably the single most important organising concept in social and political theory'.

The concept of power links it to the ability to achieve a desired outcome, sometimes referred to as power to. The concept of power has long been studied by political thinkers: For Machiavelli, power is an end in itself, and whatever means are necessary for a prince to acquire and maintain political power are justified. Thomas Hobbes however saw that competition for goods of life becomes a struggle for power because without power one cannot retain what one has acquired. One cannot retain power without acquiring more power. German sociologist Max Webber linked power of authority and rules, and focused on structures and bureaucracy. Robert Dahl continues Weber’s approach, both in the definition of power and in the attribution of it to a concrete human factor.  In “The Concept of Power” (1957), Dahl developed a formal definition of power, “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do. Dahl treated power as the ability to influence the decision-making process, an approach he believed to be both objective and quantifiable.

Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz (1962) developed a model as a response to Dahl—the two faces of power (way decisions are made, and ways that they are not made). For example, on what basis can ‘key’ decisions, which are studied, be distinguished from ‘routine’ ones, which are ignored. Bachrach and Baratz described non-decision-making as the ‘second face of power. Although Bachrach and Baratz accepted that power is reflected in the decision-making process, they insisted that ‘to the extent that a person or group – consciously or unconsciously – creates or reinforces barriers to the public airing of policy conflicts, that person or group has power’

In the 1970s, Steven Lukes (1974) developed Bachrach and Baratz’s approach further. His devised the three dimension of power. In the first face, the decision making process, A’s power over B is manifested to the extent that A can make B do something which B would not have done had it not been for A. In the second face, agenda setting, certain subjects or participants are excluded from the process. In addition to the resources of the first dimension, the people with power mobilize game rules which work in their favor, at others’ expense. Decision-making may be prevented by the exertion of force, the threat of sanctions, or the mobilization of bias which creates a negative approach to the subject.

The third, latent dimension that of the true interests, explains that B does things that he would not have done had it not been for A because A influences, determines and shapes B’s will. Media, advertisement, political campaigns, education, mass action and others are but example of the subtle influence of public opinion.

Nowadays, we see a fourth face of power: the ability to embrace ambivalence and accept shallow truths. A headline is enough of information; a quick YouTube animated video can provide a sound justification for a policy; beautifully worded accusations masked with humanitarian values are adopted; and complete ambivalence to events - whether near or far – are perfectly acceptable.

Political power currently rests on that four face – a dangerous, lonely, and self-destructive facade.

Pick your meal

President Joe Biden succeeded in overthrowing Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan in an American democratic manner and through a no-confidence vote against his government. Two determining votes sealed the deal. The opposition bloc led by Shahbaz Sharif, the older brother of Nawaz Sharif, who was convicted of corruption and money laundering, and was released due to his deteriorating health conditions, saw this as a golden opportunity.

The biggest sin committed by Imran Khan in the eyes of the United States, and President Biden is his support for Taliban's resistance against the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, his close political and economic relations with China, and his refusal to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Pakistan's refusal to normalise relations with Israel added another layer of dismay. 

Similar to most countries in the region, Pakistan has re-considered its alliances. It has strengthened its relations with the "axis of resistance" led by Iran, and rejected a request to send forces to participate in the Yemen war under the banner of the Saudi-Emirati coalition. 

By leading the “Instance” movement and raising the slogan of change and the founding of the new Pakistan, Khan and his allies were able to win the majority in the 2018 elections and form a coalition government. The American war on President Imran Khan began in the last years of the administration of President Donald Trump, because he refused to “use” Pakistan’s military and security capabilities to fight the Taliban movement in Afghanistan, and to save the American “NATO” from defeat. The first punitive retaliatory step began by stopping aid. The second step came in inciting the Pakistani separatist movements and supporting their military activities: the Baluchi movement and the Pakistani Pashtun Taliban, and above all, the “Islamic State” organization “ISIS” in Pakistan.

Proxy wars have taken on a new dimension following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Former President George W. Bush has few quotes that merit citing; however, one rings ever so true: You are either with us, or against us. There is no room for partiality or Swiss chocolate neutrality: it is either Russian Vodka, or a barbequed cheese burger.