Author: Mufti Obaidullah Noorzahi
Crises of Liberalism in the Contemporary World (Part 11)
Classical and Modern:
Given the existing differences, liberalism is generally divided into two main categories: 1. Classical 2. Modern. Classical liberalism has limited goals and is essentially a political school of thought. Modern liberalism, on the other hand, is unrestricted and has broader, more general objectives. It is said that modern liberalism poses a threat to its classical form.[1]
Classical liberalism focuses on limited government, upholding the rule of law, avoiding authoritarian power, individual responsibility for one’s own destiny, and protection of personal property and contracts. Classical liberalism is not necessarily a democratic ideology, as there is no certainty that majority rule aligns with the rule of law, property rights, and civil liberties. Classical liberals also dispute with the welfare state, believing that every individual should pursue their own welfare independently. [2]
Thomas Hobbes sought to define the purpose and justification of state power after the English Civil War. He used the concept of natural rights and, through the idea of a social contract, concluded that monarchy was the ideal and only desirable system for society. John Locke, adapting Hobbes’s theory of social contract and natural rights, argued that if a monarch becomes a tyrant and oppressor, he violates the social contract, thereby endangering the citizens’ lives, liberty, and property—rights that are naturally theirs. Locke concluded that people have the right to rise up against the tyrant and depose him. By placing life, liberty, and property as fundamental values above the law and government power, Locke defined liberalism based on the theory of the social contract. According to early Enlightenment thinkers, safeguarding essential rights—especially liberty and private property—requires establishing a government with a comprehensive judiciary. [3]
Liberals believe that humans naturally follow their instincts and seek personal interests. The only way to restrain this dangerous nature and escape it is to create a common authority above all individuals, capable of enforcing rules and resolving conflicts and clashes of interests and instincts through binding decisions. [4]
This authority can take shape within a civil society, where individuals voluntarily enter into a social contract with a governing power, determine their own fate, and transfer their natural rights to a government they have chosen, so that it can protect their lives, liberty, and property. These early liberals often disagreed on what form of government was most desirable or suitable, but they all shared the belief that liberty is a natural right and any restriction on it requires strong justification. Most liberals support limited government, though some liberal philosophers explicitly denounce the very concept of the state. For example, Thomas Paine wrote: “Government, even in its best state, is a necessary evil.” [5]
As part of the effort to limit state power, various liberal theorists like James Madison and Baron de Montesquieu supported the idea of separation of powers—a system designed to distribute governmental power equally across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. According to liberals, citizens have the right to oppose and overthrow any government they deem undesirable, by any means necessary, even though violence or revolution if needed. [6]
Contemporary liberals, heavily influenced by social liberalism, still strongly support a limited constitutional government, while also advocating for state and local services to ensure equal rights for individuals. Modern liberals argue that formal guarantees of individual rights are meaningless if people lack the ability to actually use them. Therefore, they support a more active role for the state in managing economic affairs. [7]
Early liberals also laid the groundwork for separating church from state and religion from politics. Like the Enlightenment thinkers before them, liberals believed that any social or political order arises from human actions and behaviors—not from divine will.[8] While many liberals were openly hostile toward religious and theological beliefs, most of their opposition to religion in politics stemmed from the belief that faith, on its own, can provide well-being to individuals and does not need state support or governance. [9]
Beyond defining a specific role for the state in a modern society, liberals place great emphasis on the meaning and nature of the most important principle in liberal philosophy: freedom. From the 17th to the 19th centuries, liberals—from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill—understood freedom as the absence of interference from the government or any other person. They argued that each individual should have the liberty to develop their unique capacities and abilities without being violated by others. [10]
Mill’s classic book, On Liberty (1859), declares: “The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way.” [11]
Support for free market capitalism has also consistently accompanied this idea of liberty. In his book The Road to Serfdom (1944), Friedrich Hayek argued that reliance on the free market prevents totalitarianism. [12]
Continues…
References:
[1] Ryan, “Liberalism”, A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, p. 362.
[2] Ryan, pp. 362–363.
[3] Young, pp. 30–31.
[4] Young, p. 30.
[5] Young, p. 31.
[6] Young, p. 32.
[7] Young, pp. 32–33.
[8] Gould, p. 4.
[9] Young, p. 33.
[10] Wolfe, p. 74.
[11] Adams, pp. 54–55.
[12] Wempe, p. 123.
By admin2