Liberty of the Ancients and the Modern PDF

Preview

Summary

It covers the essay by Benjamin Constant....

Description

The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns Rishabh Sharma Many regimes of modern times have an inclination towards the ancient practices like banishment, exile and confiscation of property, similar to Athenian ostracism and Roman censorship. Their actions are driven by the ancient understanding of liberty, that is, they try to imitate the ancient republics – but application of an ancient notion of liberty in modern times can be counterproductive.

Henri-Benjamin Constant de Rebecque was a political activist, and was one of the early thinkers to be called a “liberal”. In an address to the Athénée Royal de Paris in 1819 he stated (admits revolutionaries’ foolish obsession with incorporation of ideas about public and private life from classical philosophy into the modern world) that the idea of liberty has evolved with time and human evolution, thus it would be a folly to believe that only a singular understanding of this idea can exist. He aims at highlighting the shift in our (mankind’s) understanding of liberty by drawing comprehensive distinction between the ancient and the modern conception of “liberty”. Liberty, be it for the ancients or the moderns, is a cherished value and is ‘especially precious to the modern nations’. If we fail to understand or acknowledge the distinction between the two we will threaten our own liberty, as it was witnessed during the days of French Revolution. Thinkers like Abbé de Mably who identified with the ancient concept of liberty tried to impose the same upon modern Frenchmen, notwithstanding the fact that the notion of liberty for the people of France had nothing in common with the ancient notion. Liberty can be enjoyed only under the structure of a representative government – a modern notion – however representative government is a modern discovery, the 1|Page

nations of antiquity never had any such institutional structure, still the idea of liberty existed. Clearly, the idea of liberty also prevailed in the ancient times but in a different form and under different conditions. Thus, it is imperative for us to understand these differences so that we can better appreciate the concept at large. The ancients gave primacy to the collective way of life, that is, collective freedom. This for them even meant subjugation of individuals to the collective will. Private actions, views, beliefs, opinions, choices and faith were not given room, everything was strictly monitored. The laws in the ancient times regulated an individual’s way of life, the conventions and customs of life – ultimately everything. The authority of the collective dominated and no scope was provided for individual exercise of liberty. People ‘collectively and directly’ were engaged in matters concerning the state like war, peace, alliances, vote on new laws, and keeping check on the rulers. Thus, it can be safely concluded that individuals in the ancient times were sovereign in public affairs but were slaves in their private affairs, as members of the collective body they passed judgments; as subjects of the collective body they could be deprived of their status, stripped of their privileges, banished, put to death, by the choice of the collective of which they were a part. The moderns on the other hand bestow utmost importance to the individual rights and liberty. Liberty for modern men is ‘Rule of Law’, and personal safety. An individual in modern times is sovereign only in ‘appearance’, the idea of sovereign power though lies with the citizenry, but is never put to use and almost always remains suspended. Moreover, the aim of the moderns is to secure their private benefits and any guarantee accorded to these benefits is liberty for them. This whole dichotomy is based upon the idea of a tradeoff between social liberty and personal liberty. The ancients trade their personal liberty for social liberty whereas the moderns trade their social liberty for personal liberty. The ancients in their understanding were sacrificing less to gain more. Sharing of social power amongst the citizens of a country is liberty for the ancients. Whereas, it’s quite the opposite for the moderns. This varied behavior is explained by the values and importance that each accords to political and individual liberty and other changes that take place over time.

War and Commerce – The ancient states of antiquity were geographically very small and were constantly in the state of conflict. They threatened each other constantly and even a peaceful state could not give up arms for the fear of being conquered. The 2|Page

ancient states maintained their freedom through war. This idea seemed very absurd to the moderns who were enlightened enough to understand that war caused more problems and constraints than provide solutions. The benefits of war in modern times have been replaced by the benefits of commerce, as both help to achieve what one wants, maintain freedom and prosperity- it is a ‘calculated war’. The moderns employ commerce rather than war (which causes bilateral damage and provides no concrete gains). Individuals and Public life – In ancient time people used to engage in daily discussions of the affairs of the state, but in modern time this trend has diminished. People view participation in public life as constraining their individual life. The primary reason for this is the shift in the influential ability of an individual over time. The will of an individual in the ancient time had profoundly impacted the activities of the state, thus the ‘exercise of one’s will was a lively pleasure each time it was employed’. This was the driving force behind the ancients’ inclination towards political rights. Such scenario does not exist now, as individuals do not exert the same influence as they did earlier. The exercise of political rights offers the moderns only a part of the benefit that the ancients enjoyed, thus they tend to swerve away from the political rights and tend to favour and value individual rights which they find more rewarding. The ancients believed that everything must give way to ‘collective will’, and all restrictions imposed upon the individual in this process would be compensated by providing participation in the social power. Political liberty guarantees individual liberty, that is, individual liberty cannot exist without political liberty. But if we try to force the modern men to give up individual liberty for political liberty we will alienate them from the latter which will further deprive them of their individual liberty. Thus, both the forms of liberty are necessary for the overall experience of liberty by an individual. Representative Government and Political liberty – The ancients in order to exercise their set of freedom used to dedicate more and more time and energy in exercising their political rights, whereas modern men try to save more and more time and energy from the exercise of their political rights so that they can have time for their personal interests and enjoy their set of freedom. This argument explains the need for representative government. It is a means by which people appoint few individuals to look after their interests, the ancients however, looked after their own interests (one more instance that

3|Page

explains their dedication towards the political sphere), but the moderns are unwilling to do so and thus appoint stewards to look after their interests. At last, it is important to exercise both the ancient set of liberty (Political) and the modern set (Personal), as if we remain too much intoxicated by our enjoyment of personal liberty and private independence, we may in its pursuit surrender too much of our political power. This will make the rulers or authorities of modern time increasingly despotic. We must exercise our political liberty for the improvement of mankind as enjoyment of personal liberty alone is not the purpose of life; it is the political liberty which will ensure our individual liberty in the long run, and if we relinquish our political liberty we will not be able to keep a check upon the representatives whom we have appointed to look after our interests. We must combine the two liberties as we cannot attain one without the other.

4|Page...