Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.
— George Orwell, English novelist
The biggest freedom every human being enjoys is the freedom of thought.
The power, authority, luxury and right to think good, bad, ugly, reprehensible, joyful, awesome, awful, hateful, or beautiful things cannot be taken away by any statute, law, order, edict, judgment or regulation.
Cogitationis peonam nemo patitur (Latin) — no one can be punished for his thoughts. Having had said that, we must also agree that a madman is justly punished by his madness.
“The power to steal that was acquired by disgraceful means has never been directed to any good purpose,” cautioned Tacitus, holds true to crooked politicians constantly caught with their hands in the (people’s) Treasury, and then tried in a court of law, and ultimately acquitted because of pre-fabricated nod-nod-wink-wink evidence and proof with an abiding faith in statutory construction as expounded by “learned” judges.
Now, here we must note that the power to steal is actually a freedom expended by those in power. There is no corresponding freedom of law to punish the culprits when the “what” and the “why” do not square off with the “how.”
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them,” said George Orwell, in his famous novel 1984.
This is so true in the political scenario. Another word for it is antinomy — a contradiction between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable; a paradox.
Welcome to the legal profession where words and phrases, properly used and articulated, leads to either victory, vindication, vendetta or victimisation.
The freedom to make law rests with the legislatures subject to limitations, restrictions, preferences and ethnocentricity. Proof — “Black Lives Matter” in the USA, while we have Article 153 Federal Constitution (FC) concerning special positions and the legitimate interests of other communities.
Chaotic order begins when the freedom of law is subjected to interpretations in a court of law. Today, mitigation is timely and available with the justification of “political donations,” or “campaign finance,” as an exit strategy which successfully concludes government-sponsored litigation.
The USA led the charge and laid the foundation in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning unlimited campaign finance regardless of the sources. Menders, tenders, fenders and benders of the rule of law.
The freedom to vote is another specious, spurious and egregious fright given the political landscape where switching allegiances and alliances take on a new meaning far removed from voters’ expectations from the political party of their choice.
Voters’ consciousness get into focus with bewildering clarity when party jumping is inevitable with no known remedy, as yet, except perhaps with the Orwellian philosophy that “until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”
The rebellion can only be translated as needful, necessary and intelligent legislation.
The freedom to dissent, disagree, and debate can also be a frightful freedom depending on the political environment even if it is a hallmark of democracy.
Dissent is always associated with anti-government activities, and it works very well when the police to come knocking on your door if you are a
conscientious objector.
“Dissent is essential in a democracy. If a country has to grow in a holistic manner where not only the economic rights but also the civil rights of the citizen are to be protected, dissent and disagreement have to be permitted, and in fact, should be encouraged. It is only if there is discussion, disagreement and dialogue that we can arrive at better ways to run the country,” said Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge of the Supreme Court of India at a Supreme Court Bar Association function on February 2020.
The freedom to want prosperity for your community is another nightmare left to the decisive whims of government which views your demands and requests from a political vantage point.
The oft-recurring perspective is whether your community has been supportive of the government’s policies. Way before government was invented everything that came out of the soil belonged solely to the occupants and residents of a particular locality.
Then came the man on a high horse carrying a huge broadsword accompanied by fifty-five other well-armed men on horseback. The big man accidentally fell of his horse, and as he fell and hit the ground, he grasped some earth in his hands, and quickly got up.
The riders and the villagers saw a clump of earth in his hands, and someone shouted, “the king has blessed this land; this soil is a promise of fertility” — the beginning of the fearsome freedom of socioeconomic and geopolitical policies controlled by a minority in the guise of government where liberty means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the New Sarawak Tribune.
