This article was originally published in 2019 by Amy Oloo via Democracy Without Borders blog. 

FREEDOM. With millions of people across the world fleeing violence, oppression, economic desparation or because of environmental reasons, migration remains a key issue on the political agenda. Two years ago we reported on our blog that a powerful case was made that the global benefits of open borders and free movement of people may strongly outweigh the disadvantages. This piece looks at some of the arguments since then.

In an article penned for the Los Angeles Daily News, Doug McIntyre argued recently that nation-states as we know them eventually may become a thing of the past. The columnist said that due to increased access to the internet, and subsequent exposure to ‘others’, people are beginning to identify themselves as global citizens. “For the first time in human history our sense of community is not limited by geography,” he writes. In fact, surveys confirm that the notion of global citizenship is widespread.

The world is far away from ‘borderlessness’

However, the world is far away from achieving a state of ‘borderlessness’. According to Tim Marshall, author of the 2018 book Divided: Why We’re Living in an Age of Walls, Donald Trump’s controversial plans for building a wall on the border to Mexico is actually in the global norm. The author reveals that 65 countries now have a wall or fence. Half of these fortifications were built in this century. Marshall argues that their purpose is to ease concerns by giving the impression that ‘something is being done’ to keep migrants out. After all, the current influx of nationalist leaders often is a result of growing concerns about uncontrolled mass migration.

The idea of a world without borders remains unfathomable for those in the Global South. The free movement of people across borders has only been awarded to the affluent and those with European and North American passports.

In a piece titled The Idea of a Borderless World, Achille Mbembe, a Cameroonian philosopher and political theorist,  argues that the “capacity to decide who can move, who can settle, where and under what conditions is increasingly becoming the core of political struggles.”

According to Mbembe classical liberal thought embraces the freedom of movement for capital, goods, and services. He argues that a ‘fourth freedom of movement’ must be added: that of people. In the European Single Market this freedom is referred to as free movement of labour.

Thus, Africans and all world citizens must be awarded the same freedom of movement that others already have. Mbembe acknowledges that in order to initiate this transition, African countries themselves must start with opening their borders to each other and remove the tight constrictions that were mapped out by colonizers. The African Continental Free Trade Area which is set to launch on 30th May 2019 may be perceived as a step towards this. The new free trade area is envisioned to become one of the largest single markets in the world and will provide companies with easy access across the continent. Two months ago Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta called upon African governments to allow free movement of people as well. The African Union is already working on a single African passport for all African citizens.

From a moral point of view, freedom of movement should be granted irrespective of social or economic status. Nonetheless, denial of the ‘fourth freedom’ remains rooted not only in xenophobic views but also in economic bias. This is best illustrated by the fact that 108,000 millionaires were able to migrate freely in 2018 as a recent study showed. Further reports predict that at least 26% of the world’s millionaires will make similar moves in 2019. In many cases, millionaires from countries such as China, Russia and Turkey flock to states such as Australia, Canada and the USA. Often millionaires effectively purchase citizenship or residency status, a privilege not awarded to the poor. They cannot even travel freely.

The post Walls, fences, and a borderless world: Recent arguments first appeared on Opulens.

THE INDIVIDUAL. Historically, the notion of being an individual is a modern phenomenon because as humans throughout history, we have lived in more or less collectivist forms of polities, communities and social organizing. Questions about our existence, feelings and lifestyles are something we deal with daily. In the book “We are all individualists” (“Vi är alla individualister” in Swedish), liberal opinion-maker and philosopher Jesper Ahlin Marceta writes about why Sweden is a very individualistic society and about the role of liberalism.
.

What does it mean to be an individual? Humans think about existential questions daily and self-reflection is something that we can develop through education and exercises. For example, according to the Taoist philosophy, a smart person understands and knows others while a wise person understands and knows oneself.

My own individuality developed to a large extent through the experiences of the war in Bosnia almost 30 years ago. My memories entail moments such as listening to Neil Young’s “Keep on rocking in the free world” and the Belgrade-based punk band Partibrejkersi, whose members actively opposed Serbia’s dictator Slobodan Milosevic in the 1990s.  They were singing about the importance of being honest, free and unique as an individual. These occasions were very important for me in order to deal with a post-war environment characterized by authoritarian values, hateful behaviors and social mistrust.

Discussions about who we are and how we should behave are important around the globe. One outcome is the establishment of the new philosophical movements and initiatives, such as metamodernism, based on the arguments that our values and behaviors are characterized by how humans shape our social world and how our experiences shape us.  The recent development in Europe regarding debates about migration, identification and community has also resulted in many new books being published on topics related to human morality and psychology. Based on some latest experiences in Sweden, my latest reading is “We are all individualists,” written by Jesper Ahlin Marceta, one of Sweden’s foremost liberal thinkers and member of the liberal magazine Liberal Debatt.

The book targets everyone who wants to understand what Sweden is, has been and can become as a society when it comes to dominant norms, values, and behaviors. Ahlin is an author who makes his arguments based on empirical evidence and research from various fields, which makes the book a mix of history, philosophy and psychology. The reader will become acquainted with concepts such as idiocentric and allocentric personality type and how it reflects on everyday life.

Ahlin’s work can be described as a Sweden-focused discussion regarding communication and stories characterized by the “Brexit and Trump” era. The book is also about the history of liberalism as well as other ideologies. The author writes about the meaning of individualism throughout history; an important reflection as liberalism, individualism, and globalization are criticized for making people angry, authoritarian and atomized through “destroyed” democracies and communities.

By establishing his counter-arguments on an impressive amount of research, Ahlin shows why many critics of liberalism and individualistic lifestyles, such as the social-conservative academic Patrick Deneen, get wrong in their reasoning. Another strength of the book is that Ahlin masters the meaning of different ideologies by pointing out the differences between liberal and socialist individualists. It is worth mentioning that despite his affiliation to the right-wing and market-liberal think tank Timbro, Ahlin advocates more cooperation between liberals, progressives and left-wingers by writing about the history of ideological and political compromises related to Sweden`s development during the 20th century.

At the same time, when it comes to making compromises, there are also parts of the book I find uncomfortable. Because Ahlin is doing something radical and new in the Swedish debate about ideas, and more precisely when it comes to the debate within the liberal community in Sweden. Partly, Ahlin takes a stand against neoliberalism, which he believes has focused too much on the market, money and materialism instead on topics regarding community and identification. Ahlin also takes a stand for “liberal nationalism“, turning the book a kind of a cold shower for many liberals, especially those who during the 1990s and 2000s, advocated in favor of globalization, European integration and liberalization processes.

From my point of view, in a modern world, it is impossible to make a political defense of the individual’s uniqueness and plurality in the universal sense by demanding that “everyone” must have a special loyalty to a certain nation, even if it is done with a reference to liberal values. The book does not really address the fact that the advocacy of the mix of liberalism and nationalism is nothing new in modern times and that similar ideas throughout history have contributed to repression, distrust and even wars. In addition, the case in Sweden is that several right-wing opinion-makers have already invoked liberal-nationalism by stating phrases such as “Sweden should become like Denmark” – a society that has become less open, liberal and tolerant in recent years.

I expected to find in the book relevant academics and opinion-makers such as Clara Sandelind, who has written about the problems concerning the mixture of liberalism with nationalism and what it means regarding policies for migration, identification and freedom in relation to global problems and challenges. Therefore, the book lacks deeper, more complex and world-conscious answers about how liberals should act and organize themselves and how liberalism can be renewed. It is already the fact that Sweden as an EU-member state, functions as a transnational state and in some respects as a cosmopolitan state as when it comes to refugees and human security.

After all, nationalism neither inspire nor enable people to cooperate as world citizens by creating new stories and institutions and empathy and solidarity worldwide. However, the book is an important read for those who want to understand how Sweden’s development during the 2020s may look like, why individualism is still important and why the liberal state and society model is so far better compared to others.

The post Being an individual yesterday, today and tomorrow first appeared on Opulens.

Recently, the leader of a major opposition party in Georgia was detained, despite calls from the outside world for dialogue and restraint. Prime Minister Giorgi Gakhari resigned last week, alleging the plans to arrest the opposition leader to be the cause that risks plunging the country in crisis. But what is the conflict really about? We put the question to George Mchedlishvili, associate professor of political science at International Black Sea University in Tbilisi.

This article was originally published by Tomas Nordberg via Global Bar Magazine. 

The protests continued on Saturday the 27^th with the demonstrators demanding the release of Niki Melia. The Washington Post writes that the chaos in Georgia plays into Putin´s hands and encourages the Georgian politicians to act in unity and to compromise.

How are we to understand what is happening? And what is the background to the conflict? We asked George Mchedlishvili, associate professor in political science at International Black Sea University in Tbilisi.

How would you characterize recent developments? 

– The detention of the leader of the United National Movement (UNM), the biggest opposition party, is hardly a positive development on its own right. However, it must be said, that the detained Nika Melia bears a significant portion of responsibility for what happened. He had been warned on more than one occasion that the failure to pay a 40,000 Georgian Lari (around $12,000) bail would entail his detention. This bail was imposed on Melia for the removal of the monitoring bracelet that had been attached to his wrist for the alleged calls to storm the Parliament during the huge June 2019 protests. So, despite the lack of wisdom on the part of the Government, who should have been cognizant that the detention of the political figure of such magnitude would escalate political tension in the country, from the standpoint of the law they were right.

– These developments contribute to the further polarization of the Georgian political landscape, which hardly bode well for the country’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations.

How would you describe the background of the conflict? 

– The background is a nearly decade-old conflict between the United National Movement (UNM), the ruling party till October 2012, and the Georgian Dream (GD), which was created in late 2011 for this very goal – to defeat the UNM – the mission GD successfully accomplished in October 2012. The parties changed roles, but their attitude towards each other did not change, and continues to be characterized by extreme degrees of animus and vitriol. The narrative of UNM against the GD has not undergone any changes over the past decade and is based chiefly on accusations of pro-Russian orientation. The narrative of the GD is also practically unchanged and is associated with the authoritarian and repressive methods of governance that the UNM employed when in power. Unfortunately, this bipolarity remains the defining feature of Georgian politics, whereby both ”poles” view the game exclusively in a zero-sum fashion and a new and meaningful political force, substantively distinct from both GD and UNM, is yet to appear.

What are the underlying reasons for the conflict? 

– UNM and several small opposition parties pinned their hopes on the elections, hoping to seriously squeeze the Georgian Dream’s parliamentary preeminence. But the elections, although they were held with some violations, were nevertheless recognized as legitimate, and gave a majority (albeit very far from constitutional) to the incumbent Georgian Dream. The UNM-led opposition chose to boycott the parliament (thus betraying their voters) and opted for escalating political tensions to avoid complete irrelevance. For this reason, the leader of UNM, Melia, publicly removed the monitoring bracelet, fully aware that this in-your-face act of disobedience would trigger the response on the part of the law enforcement. The current escalation of tensions plays into the hands of the opposition, as they stand to lose more from the status-quo.

What does this unfolding of incidents portend for the future of democracy in Georgia? 

– Georgia’s fledgling democracy seems to be the biggest loser in the current confrontation. Situations like these, whereby a politician is detained (even though he partially bears the responsibility), and the rhetoric is inflammatory, is distinctly bad for the state of democracy and political dialogue in Georgia.

Who is responsible for the situation?

– Both parties bear the responsibility. The opposition leader himself chose the path of obstructing justice. He could not help but foresee the consequences of such a line of conduct. I believe the bulk of responsibility lies on Nika Melia himself. On the other hand, the authorities acted very unwisely and clumsily. They could have predicted international reaction to such a forceful step.

The post What is the conflict in Georgia about? first appeared on Opulens.

HUMANITY. In “Pieces of the puzzle – Managing migration in the EU” researcher Bernd Parusel argues for a new European immigration policy and system based on human rights, social inclusion and global cooperation. One important conclusion is that if the EU cannot improve and learn from current failures, it will be more or less impossible to create better solutions at the world level as well.

During 2015, more than 1 million refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants came to the EU. Most of EU-governments accepted the majority of immigrating individuals as in cases of Germany, Sweden and Portugal. But instead of taking pride in such large and historical humanitarian effort, the EU has changed negatively when it comes to policies, decisions and communication. Even those EU-states as Germany with a “welcoming attitude” are not more restrictive and pessimistic regarding humanitarian migration.

While the Corona pandemic has resulted in border closures and reduced human mobility across the world, the EU: Commission has been organising a new “New Pact on  Migration and Asylum”. A pact that most of the EU-governments and parliamentary groups in the European Parliament are unsatisfied with. Several analysts and experts have already been proclaimed the pact as “business as usual” where ideals of open society and closed society are mixed as a European, one can often feel that issues concerning immigration policies and systems are a never-ending story. 

However, it is not a never-ending story, but migration will always be part of Europe. After all, most Europeans have someone in their history as parents or have friends and colleagues who have been refugees and immigrants. Also, as the EU is integrating politically and economically, even the migration policy areas will have to follow. It is hard to have a single market and common institutions with 27 asylum systems.

Historically seen, EU-governments have been discussing and negotiating about integrating policies and institutions for the humanitarian and labour migration already since the 1980s. 

Such historical background is described in the book “Pieces of the puzzle – Managing migration in the EU”  by Bernd Parusel, published via European Liberal Forum. Parusel makes a detailed historical presentation that is important when understanding Europe concerning migration. In the first place, the book is a strong encouragement to political actors, especially liberal and progressive ones, to find and create better solutions than the existing ones. 

Parusel emphasises that it is important to defend human rights that are EU:s cornerstone and push forward with new dynamics such as offering meaningful storytelling about the future of Europe. For example, an important proposal in the book is how new legal pathways could be created so that more people can enter the EU legally, freely and safely when applying for the right to asylum. Among other important proposals are to develop new mechanisms for shared responsibilities between EU-governments. 

The book provides a detailed and comprehending analysis concerning what has happened and what can be done by Europe. Parusel is also proposing better cooperation between the EU and other governments as the African ones when it comes to humanitarian assistance and deportation actions. The overall message is that more fences and walls will not work, while better cooperation and common goals will benefit humans, governments and continents. 

Finally, an important message of the book is that what is done Europe does not stay in Europe. Parusel highlights the importance of the 2018 Global Compact on Migration agreement and negotiations depending on European governance and development. Thereby, the EU can improve itself and our planet regarding human dignity and security. 

The post Time for EU:s humanitarian update first appeared on Opulens.

FREEDOM. One of liberalism’s main contributions to human progress are ideas about the free movement for individuals, as in the case of the European Union. Therefore, liberals and other actors need to remember that ideas of free movement are not only about economic aspects. The possibility to move freely and safely also depends on ideas and stories regarding identification and institutions. 

In 1947 the first meeting of liberal intellectuals took place in the small town Mont Pelerin in Switzerland. Discussions about migration and mobility were not on the top of the agenda, but several participants stated that free migration as in Europe would be unrealistic and impossible. Around 45 years later, freedom of movement became a possibility for all EU-citizens with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992-93. 

Globally seen, the freedom of movement in the EU is unique because nowhere else in the world is freedom of movement for humans based on ideas of supranational citizenship with specific rights and freedoms. There is a similar example in South America,  but far from the European system, concerning Mercosur countries: Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay. At the moment, the development in Mercosur regarding freedom of movement is going in a libertarian direction based on ideas of regional citizenship. 

The development in South America offers hope and optimism concerning resistance against freedom of movement in Europe as a result of rising nationalism and populism since 2015. The intellectual and political support for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, better known as Brexit, has been based on a polarising discussion about migration. As several examples are showing today, Brexit is not some decentralising nor freedom-oriented process. Instead, it is a process based on nationalist and collectivist development where central planning, controls, uniformity and obstacles are favoured before freedom, openness and individualism. 

During the Brexit-debates, dreadful and even racist opinions were promoted in the discussion about immigration and movement. For example, opinions such as that only high-skilled individuals should be able to immigrate to the UK. Or that immigration from the Middle East has to be reduced, or seven stopped for “white Britons” to not feel afraid. It is very easy to forget that behind statistical categories, the low-skilled individuals are still humans that also perform vital assignments such as working as nurses—an important factor in the time of Covid-19 virus pandemic. 

Another example from the Brexit debate is the reasoning that “liberal economists” did not plan what the freedom of movement would mean for (British) national identity. This was stated by left-wing conservative opinion-maker David Goodhart, famous for his populist reasoning that humans are either “anywheres” as cosmopolitan individuals living in big cities or “somewheres” as nationalist individuals living in rural areas. Goodhart has since the 2000s argued in favour of a  “post-liberal” future, including statements such as that the freedom of movement in the EU “lacks economic rationality” and foremostly benefits European academics and those in the UK who have made friends with someone as from Poland. 

There are several examples of absurdity in Goodhart’s reasoning. Among other things, poorer Europeans that have moved from, for example, Romania to the UK could be categorised as “anywheres” because they have chosen to leave their local communities. Nor are there any homogeneous national identifications, partly because people are identifying themselves based on different stories and ideas. Also, the freedom of movement in the  EU is a vital part of EU:s economic development and integration that could lead to EU:s economy becoming as integrated as in the case of federations as the USA.

Another important understanding of the freedom of movement in the EU is that the economic rationality exists when comparing results of economic differences between EU-countries. Reduction of differences between salary levels across the EU is also a result of freedom of movement for workers. This has been the case because employers, as in the construction sector in Czechia and Poland had to increase salaries for workers to keep them locally and offer them an alternative to moving to the UK or Germany. 

Still, despite the economic rationality, the case of freedom of movement and migration in overall are also about non-economic aspects, including “identity-politics’ ‘ as the Brexit process itself is showing. For those who believe in the importance of freedom of movement, it is simply not enough to reduce migration to only economic aspects partly because the vision of global free migration depends on people also identifying themselves with the planet and as global citizens. 

For sure, people must be self-sufficient and have enough funds when we are moving. At the same time, we often move within and between cities, regions and countries with no or little money because of our different life situations. For example, it is easier to move as a poor person from a smaller town to a bigger city to cooperate with friends and family than it is to move from an Africa country to Europe. 

Furthermore, it is important to understand the paradox of the current international system. Under the UN charter, the individual has the right to emigrate from that country but not to immigrate into a  country without formal approval. This depends because the international system is still based on principles that nations or better said the governments can always decide who can migrate or not. However, not everything legitimate is good per see. For example, it is legitimate that many voters in Poland say that refugees who are Muslims should be prevented from immigrating. Still, such opinions are based on overblown fear in combination with ignorant, dehumanising and racist opinions by portraying refugees as potential rapists and terrorists. 

The struggle for freedom of movement for humans has to be based on both economic and identification aspects. When the internal passport was abolished and freedom of movement introduced in Sweden in 1858, it went hand in hand with the development of the nation-states. When the freedom of movement was in the EU, it was also about favouring supranational ideas and counteracting nationalism.  In similar ways, liberals and others who are in favour of a global free movement also need to create storytelling about identifications and institutions in cosmopolitan meaning where the EU:s history could be promoted as an important inspiration. 

The post Free movement for humans is not only about the economy first appeared on Opulens.

This text was originally published by Jesper Ahlin Marceta via his blog and translated by Helena Prytz. 

FREEDOM. Neo-liberalism is dead. Self-inflicted, it is not a day too soon. In his article in the Expressen newspaper, Payam Moula from the left-wing think tank Tiden makes a philosophical interpretation of the contemporary development which demands a response. The liberal individualism must be defended.

As editor-in-chief of the social democratic magazine Tiden (meaning The Time) Moula argues that the decade we are just leaving behind is a decade when ‘(neo) liberalism finally died, both politically and intellectually’. Grotesque inequalities and massive injustices mixed into a ‘toxic cocktail’ have resulted in ‘the legitimate disappointment in social development, politics and establishment’.

 Indeed, there is much to be said about this analysis. Nevertheless, Payam focuses primarily on the liberal individualism, which he claims is wrong and destructive in its foundations.

 According to this view, the human being is a social atom completely isolated from others. Such views do not take into consideration that the human being is a social animal or that such things as loneliness can be terrible, which is why friendships are a good thing. The full ideological understanding of human beings is wrong. It separates humans and leads to communities, cultures and societies breaking down.

 Therefore, the labour movement should at the time of ‘our crisis’ choose a different way of looking at humans, one that is natural and leads to a good life and a good society. Payam does not state what that means. This omittance to explain what he means is also seen in some of the friends he is referring to – maybe because the alternatives to liberal individualism are horrifying under normal circumstances.

For a start, Payam’s theory about atomical individualism is an old one. It is also a malicious portrait. As far back as the 1930s, John Dewey, who was an individualist, wrote that socially and culturally isolated individuals are ‘monstrosities’. A decade later, Friedrich A. Hayek wrote that this criticism is the ‘silliest of the common misunderstandings’ because the individualists are ‘starting from men whose whole nature and character is determined by their existence in society’. 

Instead of individuality, it was the group belonging that decided how one particular human should relate to others. Individualism has contributed to the breakdown of this social determinism in which social and economic circumstances decided the human destiny.

Sure, some liberals have the kind of view on human beings that Payam is ascribing to all liberals, but they are few. Most such liberals are found in different youth organisations where they ideologically rage at meetings, boring the other members. The idea that humans are social atoms has very weak support among liberals both in politics and in philosophy. Such views are not ‘dominating’, as Payam claims.

The malicious portrait of individualism that Payam is presenting is sinister, partly because it is ascribing views to liberals which they do not have. This is dishonest, but it also hides individualism’s merits.

 Individualism argues that individuals deserve attention and that they have a particularly high value compared to other moral differences, such as group-based interests. In my view (shared by many), the political and social impact of the ideology belongs to humanity’s main achievements – something that can be compared to agricultural and scientific revolutions.

Our history can illuminate something of the value of individualism. Before individualism made a breakthrough in Sweden, the population was divided into social groups such as priesthood, nobility, bourgeoisie and peasantry. Humans were social, political and judicial subjects in relation to being group members – not individuals.

Instead of individuality, it was the group belonging that decided how one particular human should relate to others. Individualism has contributed to the breakdown of this social determinism in which social and economic circumstances decided the human destiny.

During the 20th century, individualist ideas created a foundation for individual taxation, which liberated many women from a predetermined social function in the family. Today, individualism is a motivating factor when it comes to things such as that a private person should have the right to decide about her medical treatment – the family or its leader should not be the ones deciding which medical treatments another individual should undergo, for example. This is also important when it comes to counteracting the rise of local clan societies.

Even the critics acknowledge the many virtues of individualism. Charles Taylor, one of the philosophers mentioned in Payam’s article, argues that it was individualism which provided humans with a right to choose their lifestyles with their conscience and beliefs. Previously, people were often stuck in a particular place in a particular role which it was almost unthinkable to deviate from, but now they are liberated.

Karl Marx, to continue with philosophers mentioned by Payam, argued that the historical development was going in the direction of individualisation and that it was a good thing. Individuality, according to Marx, concerns the extent to which a human being has achieved his potential and become a free and creative individual in society.

In the historical development, according to Marx, people are transformed into individuals in step with achieving increased control over their social existence. Communism, argued Marx, was an individualistic last stop where the human being has become complete.

Individualism has other merits and defenders. The socialist and liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that individualism allows the human to flourish. As the contemporary philosopher George Kateb puts it – individualism means more than expressiveness, sensibility and a feeling of liveliness. Research shows that individualistic norms promote democracy and economic growth, make it easier to handle common resources (which is critical from an ecological and climate perspective, and contribute to the equality between genders.

Few philosophers and contemporary thinkers would defend atomism today, i.e. the caricature of individualism that Payam is the latest of many to reiterate. Today’s individualists are discussing the very aspect that Payam claims is missing in individualism: how the human being is positioned socially and the effect that has on us.

Among the research areas that individualists are pursuing in academia are questions such as what makes a human being able to competently make decisions for herself in hazardous situations, given that risks are at least partially dependent social factors and how the social framework of the statement of the fact affects how it is perceived. Moreover, just during the last 15 years, robust theories about the individual as a socially and physically constructed being have been developed by philosophers such as John Christman and Rachel Haliburton.

Much of the idea-packages of the individualist philosophers can be found in our daily life. Those freedoms that our liberal democracies are protecting are individualism’s values – individuality, expressiveness, personal autonomy. In Sweden for example, liberal individualists argue in favour of individualisation of parental insurance, partly because they believe that it is hard for the individual to make life choices completely independent from their social expectations that influence their decisions.

It is, therefore, a pity for many reasons that an editor of a social democratic magazine is putting individualism in a glass bowl and encouraging the labour movement to make a choice.

Payam is arguing with the support of, among others, the conservative political theorist Patrick Deneen’s theories that the labour movement should promote ‘traditions and other things that empower community’. In the book, Payam is referring to Deneen argues against social mobility and in favour of a return to social determinism. Deneen believes that real pluralism is only created when people are restricted to living in those geographical and social contexts into which they were born.

Furthermore, Deenen is searching for a freedom-term that is ‘compatible with authority’ and would make it possible to pin down people socially while simultaneously claiming that they are free. Nevertheless, an idea about freedom which is compatible with authority is in the end only an idea for authority.

When Deneen’s book was published, he was invited by Viktor Orbán – who in the previous year had banned gender studies from his country’s universities – to a public meeting. The two were re-joined in front of the cameras the two agreed that the future is based on ‘national and family values rather than on liberalism’. It is in light of this that one should read Payam’s pitch for his article in Expressen, where he states that the modern liberalism is a ‘disease’ that has ‘spread like a cancer’ and ‘has to be eliminated’.

Payam’s attack on the ‘liberal human view’ does not lead to one but two choices for the labour movement, mainly the following:

It is possible to conserve social structures as the conservative thinker Deneen wishes, or one can act in favour of improving them and creating new structures, as the progressive individualists want. Is the labour movement going to choose a conservative or a progressive line? The answer makes a difference when it comes to such things as the question of whether parental insurance should be individualised: a conservative labour movement does not promote feminism.

Moreover, people can either be liberated from the social structures that are making their lives follow a determined path, something that individualists are arguing in favour of and that Swedish Social Democrats have supported in the past. Alternatively, people can be pushed back into old structures. What is the choice labour movement’s choice: freedom or authority?

Earlier, I have argued that individualism can unite liberals and socialists in the struggle to liberate the human being from social and historical determinism. Together, we should change the circumstances that are infringing our possibilities to create our lives. Payam’s assumptions seem to be the exact opposite, which is deeply regrettable.

The post The choice for the labour movement: authoritarian conservatism or progressive individualism? first appeared on Opulens.

WELFARE. The idea of basic income has a long history. In Europe, during the last decades, it has transformed from a theoretical approach to the practical implementation as with the experiment in Finland during 2017-2019.

In Switzerland, a referendum in 2016 took place where citizens voted about the issue concerning the government providing every citizen with a guaranteed citizen salary. The proposal was later rejected by a significant marginal. Namely, around 74% voted against. However, despite the relevant terms basic income, citizen income or citizen salary a considerable difference within the debate.

The ongoing debate and the supporters of the basic income policy can be divided into three main categories: the economic-liberal, the welfare supporters and the economic-growth critics. In its original, the idea of the basic income, such as argued by academic Phillipe van Parijs, should be provided to each individual and citizen within the society. In practice, it means that a basic income should, by the state government, be given, for example, both a businessman who earns several million euros per year as well as to a low-income job seeker.

One of the most prominent specifics of the basic income idea is that it has broader support within the ideological sphere since political thinkers from left to the right, from freedom to authoritarian side, have been supporting the idea. The economic-liberal side of the debate has different political ambition, based on two main arguments. The first one is to reduce the overall size and expenditure of the welfare state by cutting down the size of bureaucracy and its costs. The second is to make the welfare state gentler and less paternalistic towards the individual.

Liberals in favour of basic income often argue that the individual should have the personal freedom to choose how to spend the basic income. The argument is that the individual knows better how the basic income can be used for their own personal success, welfare and future perspectives. Therefore from the economic-liberal side of the debate, the general idea is that basic income should be provided by a more limited distribution of welfare. For example, by providing basic income only for those who are outside of the labour market or who lack other kind of sufficient income. Also, there can be an age limit, such as providing basic income only for individuals in the age span of 19 – 65 years.

 Another support for the economic-liberal basic income policy is original ideas of liberal economist Milton Friedman regarding the negative income tax (NIT). The primary purpose is that a person without income or earning much less than the average salary would be able to receive payments in the form of subsidies from the taxation agency based on the scale the person`s income gets under the tax threshold.

Historically seen the idea of basic income has had its supporters among liberal thinkers. One prominent thinker who supported the purpose of such income was Friedrich Hayek. As a classical liberal, he was against the existence of the welfare state. However, he argued that an individual should be guaranteed a basic income if for example, being left out from the labour market. For Hayek, the primary assignment of the basic income was to deal with and correct the ”imperfections” of the free market economy.

According to Hayek, the basic income could function as a protective floor to hinder the individual from falling down into poverty. For him, this was a preferable method for making things right in the free market economy where the government could provide support for the individual in a difficult socio-economic situation.  A classical liberal argument can, therefore, be presented in short as the argument that every individual member of the society should be guaranteed freedom from poverty.

Similar ideas as Hayek’s are proposed by Matt Zwolinski, a bleeding-heart libertarian and philosophy professor in the USA.  He argues that a basic income would be an effective way to reduce the spending and the size of the federal government’s welfare, by cutting down the administration and giving money directly to individuals. Also, he means that basic income is compatible with original thoughts of the classical liberalism, meaning that the tax-funded necessary social protection can be provided.

Zwolinski’s argument is that society’s morals, rules and rights should be available to be exercised by everybody in the society as much as possible. A society based on free but complex social and economic interactions between individuals also leads to specific problems. By having citizens who are stressed and dissatisfied because of the issues as poverty, social exclusion and lack of confidence, the free and democratic society gets challenged by having the members not being able or willing to practice the morals, rules and rights of the society. The basic income can, therefore, ensure that a free and democratic society can function better since its imperfections can be corrected.

Another support for the economic-liberal basic income policy is original ideas of liberal economist Milton Friedman regarding the negative income tax (NIT). The primary purpose is that a person without income or earning much less than the average salary would be able to receive payments in the form of subsidies from the taxation agency based on the scale the person`s income gets under the tax threshold.

In contrast to the progressive taxation, the NIT is also part of the method where overall taxation would be lower and managed with the different percentage depending on the size of the taxpayer’s income. Friedman’s vision was that this would be a kind of win-win situation where the welfare state and its spending are being reduced while individual is more stimulated to take a low-paid jobs as well as getting protected from poverty.

Finally, there are also more social-liberal arguments for basic income based on positive rights. Civil rights activist Martin Luther King also advocated that a basic income should be given to every citizen, human and families in the USA. He argued that it was easier to erase poverty than to deal with its roots. Interesting fact is that during the same time period president Richard Nixon was also in favour of basic income policy which was called the family assistance plan and inspired by Friedman’s approach. For Martin Luther King, the basic income was a way for empowering the civil rights movement and also of reshaping the society into becoming more civic.

In Europe historically seen the idea of the welfare state was from the beginning, a conservative idea which can be traced to Bismarck’s Germany during the later period of the 19-the century. By, for example, providing guaranteed pensions and free schooling for all citizens it was a method of maintaining stability in the society. Many conservative politicians at the time were, for example, worried about the class-based struggle and protesting actions among the growing working class.

Today the idea of having more substantial or smaller welfare states is widely spread across the union, including the different models being implemented such as the Nordic and the continental model. For most of the citizens welfare is not a question of having or not having but a question about what kind of welfare policy should be exercised. The basic income idea has, therefore, a lot of potentials to become a modern welfare approach in future within the EU to have a more human-centric welfare policy rather than older versions of paternalistic and integrity infringing welfare states.

The post The liberal case for basic income first appeared on Opulens.

POLITICS. They are explicitly anti-left but represent a more significant threat to freedom than the left. The right-wing collectivists obsession with nation, ethnicity and political affiliation is threatening our whole free and pluralistic society. 

This article was originally published in Swedish by Svenska Dagbladet daily paper

As a political force, the centre-right Alliance for Sweden was established around a unity of certain values: belief in the market economy and the rule of law, and a social view that the individual has rights towards the state and is responsible for one’s own life. However, such an agenda has never been a vote-winner, but in general, the common ground around the values of entrepreneurship, trade and low taxation has been the putty that united both liberals and conservatives.

For a long time, the Alliance was able to mobilise by being an alternative to socialism and social democracy. Nevertheless, since the appearance of the Sweden Democrats (nationalists) in politics and especially since the December agreement, which was disappointing for many, a new political competition has arisen. Such development has been noticed in the debate about ideas.

For the last few years, especially on the Internet, we have witnessed a rise in ideas that can almost be labelled as a collectivist right. This political tide has only gathered a few genuine and consistent representatives in the debate, but the tendencies are still evident – the insistence on duty, adaptation and serving the nation while protection of the individual, tolerance and the markets are completely ignored or rejected.

The economist Deirdre McCloskey has in three books during the 2000s (the latest one is Bourgeois Equality – How ideas, not capital or institutions, enriched the world) described the bourgeois value-shift which she claims gradually brought us into the modern world, starting in the 18^th century in the Netherlands and Great Britain, and gave us democracy, freedom and wealth.

The collectivist right-wingers have quickly positioned themselves to defend everything from comprehensive welfare to aid programmes as long as they can remain critical of immigration. Demands are also being made to revoke citizenships and impose extra-judicial border controls in order to prohibit individuals from asking for help. In the long term, such demands are eroding support for individual freedom and rights, judicial functions and the rule of law. Such ideological positions are often made by individuals who are explicitly anti-left but who in reality pose a more significant threat to the values and political programmes of the Alliance than the left itself.

The economist Deirdre McCloskey has in three books during the 2000s (the latest one is Bourgeois Equality – How ideas, not capital or institutions, enriched the world) described the bourgeois value-shift which she claims gradually brought us into the modern world, starting in the 18^th century in the Netherlands and Great Britain, and gave us democracy, freedom and wealth.

It was this freedom and respect for each other that enabled ‘ordinary people’ to innovate and conduct business. Before that, both the aristocracy and peasantry valued their existence outside work above the diligence, professionalism and education that came to be the focus with regards to personal and spiritual development. Instead of enrichment through conquest and pillaging, mutually enriching commodity exchange became the way forward.

The polarisation around identity that is dominating the public discourse today is generally seen as ultimately going against the value-shift that McCloskey describes. Ethnicity and nationality have been added to identities such as class and gender. Among the Left, but also on the Right, identity is collective, not individual. It is static, not dynamic. It is not tied to individual merits or achievements but to obedience, loyalty and a willingness to conform. Victory for the own group, rather than well-functioning institutions for co-existence in peace and freedom with others, is the goal of the collective.

The imagined world view within the collectivist right reminds us of what the American political scientist Berry R Weingast has described as the ‘violence trap’, a way of thinking from feudal times which is still widespread in developing societies. It means that different groups are creating violence capital in order to enrich themselves and protect themselves from conquest, blackmail and theft. The indications of a society where violence and violence capital have become an essential factor are not only found in the more extreme rhetoric about being subjected to invasion, war and treason that some are preoccupied with, but also found in discussions around the nation, ethnicity and political affiliation defining the individual.

In what kind of society is belonging more significant than achievement? The answer: a society where people are feeling threatened and scared. The mobilisation around identity is a warning that society has lost its fundamental safety. This is self-destructive and has to be rectified. Identity politics and its divisions are not only a danger to the bourgeois but to our whole dynamic, prosperous, pluralistic and free society.

The post The Left is not the biggest threat against bourgeois values first appeared on Opulens.

IDENTIFICATION. Around the world, almost every fifth human lacks a legal identification document. Lacking official identification means worse possibilities for the individual’s economic and social development, something that primarily is harder when it comes to women and children. This is one reason why the UN 2030 Agenda is essential. With its 17 goals, also when it comes to issues of human identification. The agenda offers opportunities where none human in the future should be illegal or stateless.

Today, one of the most infringed human rights is the right to have and change nationality (citizenship). After the Millennium goals of the 2000’s, the next step regarding global development and governance is the UN:s Agenda 2030 based on the sustainable development goals — SDG:s. The SDG number 16 is about peace, justice and institutions. Also, it takes up topics regarding migration and identification. Part of the goal is that every human should have access to a legal ID in the form of ID-documents and constitutional rights.

One can wonder why such goals are required today? In principle, all UN member states have access to modern bureaucratic systems. However, regardless of all advanced technology as biometric passports and electronic confirmation systems, enormous challenges are remaining when it comes to human identification. The fact is that we are living in a world there around 1,5 billion individuals, or almost every fifth human on our planet lacks a valid ID for vital needs.

Lack of ID is especially making it harder for women and girls as in West Africa, in countries as Liberia and Ivory Coast, and in refugees camps. One reason why women, more often than men, face tough life situations is that women more often lack ID cards, proof of birth and marriage certificates. The case is often even harder in refugee camps when women can require access to financial donations, education and primary health care.

According to the World Bank, the lack of ID-documentation makes it harder for women to exercise their potential and opportunities in everyday life. Such situations when women are lacking ID-documentation makes it also harder for civic participation. Levels of gender equality in global sense are going to be lower as long as less number of women, comparing to the number of men, can practice their relations with public institutions, to practice their social rights and conduct economic self-development.

At the same time, there are efficient solutions in the forms of digital identification. One example is the Aadhaar card in India which resulted in the majority of India’s population, even the poorest have, have more comfortable possibilities to identify themselves. The Aadhaar card is based on biometric identifying with the help of microchips containing the information about the individual.

A similar system that was introduced in the neighbouring country of Pakistan resulted in 40 million women being able to give new ID-documentations at the start of the 2010s. Beside more natural processes with cash transfers and conducting relations with public institutions, it also led to more feelings of self-determination and self-confidence among many women that before never or more seldom took the opportunity vote and to organise projects.

Digital ID:s have also been proven as efficient to reduce fraud and abuse of power, and also to make it easier for democratic participation and inclusion.

In Estonia, all citizens have the Internet as a civic right. It means that the state has to provide all citizens with access to the Internet, as via public libraries, and where all citizens can e-vote (electronically) in elections.

In Nigeria, around 4300 thousand “ghost workers” disappeared from the public bureaucracy after the biometric ID-system was introduced and replace the earlier paper-based methods.

Also, such development is seen by the World Bank as good from the climate-friendly perspective such digital IDs lead to reduced usage of paper and working intensity.

A next important step in identity development has its potential in usage of the Self-Sovereign Identity or SSI. One main difference compared to the publicly issued identification, as by the state governments, is that SSI is based on the individual as a sovereign actor.

SSI is based on the blockchain function for transactions where the information is stored in a “block” that can be connected in several blocks and thereby produce a blockchain. During transition, the blocks are interacting and supporting each others security regarding the password combinations, which makes the system more secure from hacking and attacks. Also, the blockchain makes it easier for direct interactions between the individuals because a blockchain system does not demand “middle hands” and centralised based driven by private or public institutions like banks and ministries.

An essential thought behind the SSI is that the induvial does not have to hold different IDs, ass passports and health cards, for different occasions. Thanks to the SSI technology, all physical passport systems could be replaced by such digital solutions.

Last but not least, the main powerfulness and vitality of the SSI idea is that every individual has sovereignty and owns its identification. While a global citizenship in judicial meaning is still not existing, it could be established in the future on human’s fundamental freedoms, rights and sovereignty. At least, via global SSI, not human would need to be stateless or undocumented. If every induvial could own identification in a global sense, it would also make it easier for humans to migrate for self-development or potation in a more free and secure way.

The post Self-Sovereign Identity as global citizenship first appeared on Opulens.

DIGNITY. The principle of human security means also accepting the fact that no human is a single story or has only one main identity but that all of us have a right to life, freedom and security as individuals. Therefore, public institutions as governments must always be implementing universal values like freedom and equality. Especially when it comes to migration and movement.

Last week the Indian federal government, run by the right-wing nationalist BJP-party, decided to introduce a new bill under the name of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) after it passed in both lower and upper houses of the parliament.  The new act is partly an update of the 1955 citizenship law with regards to aspects such as legal and illegal migration, refugee status and naturalisation policy. The new bill mostly affects those individuals who came to India before December 2014.

One of the main arguments of the BJP-government is that CAA is important in order to protect the minorities who have been persecuted mostly on the basis of faith. The core of CAA is that it applies to Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and others who are not Muslims from India’s neighbouring countries Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. If individuals from these religious groups can prove that they originate from one of the three eligible countries, they can become Indian citizens via a fast-tracked system.

Before and after its implementation, CAA has been criticised for being discriminatory against Muslims. Various demonstrations have taken place in states like Assam and West Bengal and big cities such as Delhi and Hyderabad. The UN also made statements of CAA being discriminatory and regrettable. Also, during the first judicial hearing on petitions challenging the CAA, India’s Supreme Court declined to postpone or prevent the controversial law. Nevertheless, the court also asked the federal government to file its response to the petitions stating that CAA violates India’s constitution.

CAA can also be seen as an example of what is democratically possible and legitimate by popular demands and public institutions. According to the current UN Charter of Human Rights, which can be seen as ‘international constitutionalism’, every individual has a human right to nationality (citizenship). We also have rights to emigrate (leave a country) and to immigrate (enter a country) during circumstances such as wars and catastrophes. However, the possibility for a person to move from point A to point B always depends on the current system of sovereignty where sovereign states are the primary actors.

As humans, we still do not enjoy the right to move freely across countries and regions, nor do we have any right to citizenship in universal terms –  no right to global citizenship, so to speak. Partly because we still have not reached a more advanced and higher levels of consciousness and solidarity with regards to identification, governance and democracy. In principle, humans have rights, but the governments have sovereignty in the first place, especially regarding discussions about humanitarian immigration, rights of migrants and refugees, policies for integration and naturalisation.

In his latest book, the historian Yuval Noah Harari is discussing the recent debates around immigration, especially from European experiences. One of Harari’s main points is that ‘both sides’, pro- and anti-immigration camps,  often have legitimate arguments and proposals. Furthermore, what is legit is connected to principles of democracy and sovereignty, which is still mainly a national matter, regardless of one’s moral views. As Harari writes:

“If a country like Israel wants to allow in only Jews, and a country like Poland agrees to absorb Middle Eastern refugees on condition that they are Christians, this may seem distasteful, but it is perfectly within the rights of the Israeli or Polish voters”.

And to make the situation more complex, there is a long of history of discussions about immigration, citizenship and identification connected to CAA. For example, many Assamese-speaking people believe that they will become a minority because of illegal immigration. Many Muslims in India are angry with the law because they think it is discriminatory. Moreover, many Bengali-speaking Hindus were upset because of views that the earlier proposed bill would not provide them with enough security due to older laws and governing practices as National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Many politicians and political movements in Europe, America and Asia are doing the opposite by proposing or implementing xenophobic and racist policies, barbed wire and walls, fear-mongering and nostalgic fantasies. CAA is now part of that development. But making discriminatory laws in order to intentionally or unofficially promote a nationalist, xenophobic or reactionary agenda is also preventing important solutions that human civilisation needs for the future.

All such emotions and expressions are parts of democratic conversation. Similarly, as with the examples of Israel and Poland, voters in India have the same theoretical and practical ability to support a bill like CAA. Even if the current government’s real ambitions are Hindu-nationalist identity politics. In order to make it harder or impossible for Muslims to immigrate to India or to become Indian citizens.

Therefore, it is important to differentiate between the meaning of legitimate and rightful. Everything legitimate regarding democracy and governance is not automatically morally right, civilised or humane. One of the main problems with CAA is that it does not follow the principle of equality (judicial) with regards to the principle of equal treatment of an individual when dealing with public institutions.

If the current Indian government really wants to help all persecuted individuals, their religion or other identification should not matter. A modern government should always have the assignment to protect the human security of every individual who is residing or located on its territory. Also, the government could decentralise and federalise decision-making to local levels, such as cities, when it comes to humanitarian immigration and adaptation programmes for refugees.

Another important criticism is that CAA is not following the ‘Idea of India’ with regards to secularism, non-discrimination and pluralism. Because indirectly, CAA is sending signals in style that Islam is equal to extremism and terrorism. Thereby leading to unnecessary polarisation and conflicts in Indian society.

Many politicians and political movements in Europe, America and Asia are doing the opposite by proposing or implementing xenophobic and racist policies, barbed wire and walls, fear-mongering and nostalgic fantasies. CAA is now part of that development. But making discriminatory laws in order to intentionally or unofficially promote a nationalist, xenophobic or reactionary agenda is also preventing important solutions that human civilisation needs for the future.

Problems and challenges regarding migration are global and demand a global solution. Europe is already having similar problems to America called the “tough border complex” – more guards and obstacles equals more attempts of illegal and dangerous crossings. Protesting against poor and discriminatory laws like CAA is important in standing up for constitutional patriotism and pluralism, but it is even more important to fight for long-term institutional changes.

Administrative borders are always going to exist as long as there are cities, regions and countries or other units. Since we are soon entering the 2020s, we should be able to behave more civilised than our ancestors. One of the main questions for the 21^st century is how to make it easier for individuals to be able to move around in order to conduct self-development and legal activities freely. Because the best way to solve problems around illegal migration is through more legal migration.

Free and safe migration, as well as respect for human security and dignity, is the most optimal and civilised path forward when it comes to the current situation regarding the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Because what binds humans together is that we do not choose our places of birth and we should be able to choose our place of living-hood on Earth.

The post Not everything legitimate is good first appeared on Opulens.

HUMAN RIGHTS. Citizens of the world, or should I say, individuals, the spotlight is once again on Sweden’s judicial system. A long-time has passed since prosecutors in Sweden started a preliminary investigation, that later was referred to as the Julian Assange case. To this day it continues to haunt Swedish authorities, even after discontinuing the case against the publisher.

Currently, Assange is being detained in a state-run prison in south-east London, but there are also privately owned prisons in England. One should keep in mind that a different way is possible: in Sweden, for example, no prison-industrial complex exists, no artificial market has been created there. Yet.

The judicial process was once regarded highly in the United Kingdom, but today the justice and prison services might very well be deteriorating if the neoliberal state can lock away a journalist, by pursuing a constructed narrative and makeup charges as they go along.

After all, the Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote that the degree of civilisation in a society could be judged by entering its prisons. So, what does the inside of prisons look like in various countries? The common image of a confinement is a dirty and foul box, maybe not as horrible as the US creation and hellhole, Guantanamo Bay, but similarly dark.

For a different counterpart, one envisions Sweden and what a nomad’s minimalistic deluxe hotel room might look like. This is the product of a strong welfare state, thus it presents the standard of a decent motel, clean facilities with TV sets and libraries. When Saddam Hussein in 2004 requested to serve his prison sentence in this Nordic country, maybe it was not just a coincidence of safety measures.

Furthermore, in Norway, the mass murderer and terrorist Anders Behring Breivik is serving a life sentence. Breivik has since been able to sue the state for not complying with the European Declaration of Human Rights. If we embark on measuring like Dostoyevsky suggested, the Norwegian way is a sign of a great civilisation, one that lets an incarcerated human preserve the right to justice.

In the UK contrarily, Julian Assange might be subjected to debilitating drug treatments, according to Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. These treatments have caused him not to be able to follow his court hearings, Craig Murray, a good friend of Assange, wrote after attending the proceedings.

A different way should always be envisioned. Some additional information that is relevant to the matter is that in Sweden a prison is not simply called that, but always referred to as “kriminalvården”. One could translate it as a “correctional facility” but more accurately, it is a rehabilitation centre for criminals. The name hints of a system built on the idea of humanism and its inmates preserve some form of human dignity and are not labelled merely as prisoners but will instead receive treatment and not be completely stripped of their rights while serving their time.

Societies that are deteriorating by the standard of Dostoevsky’s measure are many, and one cannot help but think of Turkey after the coup attempt against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan when he ordered thousands to be imprisoned. It cannot be forgotten. These humans Erdogan said, had committed treason and were thrown into overcrowded prison cells. Photos later emerged showing men lying in pits, naked on top of each other and Amnesty reported on starved and tortured captives.

The Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad after the American invasion of Iraq is another example that comes to mind. It was in this location on the world map, once called Mesopotamia, that human civilisation developed and advanced. Sadly, it was also here, in modern times, that man became animal.

Wikileaks has revealed in-depth, the machinery of American imperialism and how this form of deep state governance works. Moreover, it drops bombs, takes captives and creates dungeons, wherever it sees fit.

In Her Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh in the United Kingdom, Julian Assange might at this moment be contemplating from within his isolation cell, what type of society would imprison someone who delivers the truth to people.

The post From within Julian’s cell, one can understand society first appeared on Opulens.