'I Want To Break Free': Of Utilitarian Politics and The Signifiance Of Individual Freedom of Expression in J.S Mill's 'On Liberty'

 V For Vendetta, released in 2005, is a dystopian political thriller, as set in a post-apocalyptic England which is basking under the glow of the fascist totalitarian regime of one Chancellor Adam Sutler, which has completely trampled human rights. Activists are rounded up and made to disappear under the 'black bags' of Mr. Creedy,  serving as a metaphor for the deep state and its crude tactics to quell dissent. Interestingly, black is the common denominator whereever the 'state within a state' is concerned. Black sites, black ops and all the more relatable for us as Pakistanis, black unmarked vehicles. Since their becoming the subject of memes, the masses are kept sufficiently entertained. Political theatre has its actors, and actors need their props. Getting to the point, one of the more poignant lines of dialogue from the film is:

'People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.'

Giving power to the people is the premise of an ideal democracy, which, as a form of government is a safeguard of their civil liberties and fundamental rights. John Stuart Mill, is an advocate of the theory of utilitarianism, which posits that any action done by the state, whether it be through legislation or via the legitimate use of force, should keep the concerns of the dominant majority under consideration. The government, by virtue of this theory, has the right to infringe upon public life and welfare, if it deems it a matter of necessity. This is, as Mill rightly states right at the beginning of the essay, something that would be of 'vital importance' for the future.

The context of this treatise on liberty is significant. To enunciate exactly how important, Mill introduces the reader to the conflicting forces of Liberty and Authority, and to substantiate by example, he refers to the examples of  Greece, Rome and England. In ancient times, rulers felt entitled to rule over the masses, as they felt annointed by God. This was known as the 'divine right of kings'. This was antithetical to Nature, as the opposite guarantees that people too, should have some form of entitlement to the person leading them. Yet, it is in the injustice that the consent of the governed continued to be ignored by those in power. (Thomas Jefferson famously said that liberty should yield, and government should gain ground). This culminated in blood. The French Revolution, which happens to be an important context for which this treatise is relevant, laid the foundation for the concept of liberty. The gulf between the lived realities of ruler and ruled in the nonchalant "I am the state" and "Let them eat cake" statements was permanently removed forever, etched in the annals of history. The people had spoken. The new Trinity was thus: liberty, equality and fraternity. This would now only evolve into democracy. 

'Their power was regarded as necessary, but also as highly dangerous; as a weapon which they would use against their subjects, no less than against external enemies.' 

Speaking of evolution, there is an important feature of interest in Stuart Mill's invocation of animal imagery, to hit his point home. It hearkens to Charles Darwin's biological concepts of 'natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest' in his book 'On The Origin of Species'. To understand history, one must also study how beings evolved. There is such a thing as the food chain. There are predators and prey. If the prey does not adapt to the environment, it stays prey. There are the following lines that particularly stand out.

'To prevent the weaker members of the community from being preyed upon by innumerable vultures, it was needful that there should be an animal of prey stronger than the rest, commissioned to keep them down. But, as the king of the vultures would be no less bent upon preying on the flock than any of the minor harpies, it was indispensable to be in a perpetual attitude of defence against his beak and claws.'  

This is a fascinating picture of ruthlessness that the ruler is capable of. Although, he may have the public mandate to defend his people from external enemies, yet his power makes him susceptible to having to indulge in violence against his own, out of an impromptu doctrine of necessity. Reminds me of a line from The Satires of Juvenal: 'Who will guard the guards?' It has a two-fold interpretation. The first one is that if our rulers are responsible for our protection, who is to keep a check on them to make sure they properly see it through? Secondly, if we are the guardians of our own society or state, by extension, then who is to keep us in check to make sure we aren't the ones inadvertently harming it? The existential angst among ruler and ruled is still not quelled by appropriate measures of accountability for the public official,  or in cultivating the 'perpetual attitude of defence' as in the words of Stuart Mill. The ruler may also not be the villain, yet he must be 'necessarily conceived' as such. Theory will take us only so far. Yet, it is theory we must focus our attention on.

Thus, we have the need for liberty of the masses. To have a check-and-balance on the rulers, so that they don't let their power get the better of them. This was done through two ways, first by cultivating awareness of fundamental rights or 'political liberties' including the right to protest, right to peaceful assembly, right to vote, right to join any political party as was representative of the general public by virtue of its manifesto etc. Secondly, it was done through introduction of the constitution and the system of checks and balances which would ensure the ruling elite stay on its toes as opposed to treading over other ones. This parliamentary system thus enforced was particularly successful in Europe. In the United Kingdom for example, the Palace of Westminister has a greater say in affairs of the state than Buckingham Palace i.e. the monarchy has been made largely ceremonial, a quantum shift from olden times where such a concept would be virtually unthinkable, even coming at the cost of blood. 

The new ruler would be one that would serve the best interests of the masses, as opposed to running counter to them. Thus, the system of elections was in place, subject to further considerations down the line, such as the system of proportional representation. This would ensure ideally that the people choose who they would want to represent them. The popular party would form the government. One democratically elected, for the people above everything else. Civil liberty, according to J.S Mill, also acts as a deterrent to the vain ambition of the democratically elected leader which may spring up, should he start to get any bright ideas of abuse of authority:

'And as so long as mankind were content to combat one enemy by another, and to be ruled by a master, on a condition of being guaranteed more or less efficaciously against his tyranny, they did not carry their aspirations beyond this point.' 

Enough about politics, lest I stray too much from the meat of the essay. John Stuart Mill's focus is primarily on the individuals which make up the society, and the extent to which society imposes its will on them. In time, that imposition becomes custom. Friedrich Nietzsche, in his Aphorisms on Love and Hate, defines custom as the 'union of the pleasant and the useful'. In Mill's eyes, the usefulness might be there but the pleasantness isn't. Mill posits society as the 'tyranny of the majority' that crushes individuality by instead forcing conformity upon it. Societies form the state.

More important than state, is the society. It is our frame of reference, our statistical sample space.  Therein, we see the phenomenon of the outcast, the individual who either actively or passively resists the 'tyranny of the majority'. This is the person who we are led to believe by society to be a heretic. We see a variety of colorful (euphemism for derogatory) labels associated with him. J.S Mill describes this in the following lines:

'Society can, and does execute its own mandate, and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since though, not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.'

The tyranny thus is one which must be resisted at all costs. Individual growth and creativity thrives once he or she gets off the bandwagon of groupthink. Many an individual suffers the tragedy of going off the rails, simply because of falling a prey to blindly following what is popular, or validated by the many. The society shoves its own impromptu standards of morality down everyone's (figurative) throats and expects them to submit. Many do. The 'eccentrics' who dare to be different, actually become a force for actual change. Creativity also grows in a society where every individual is not exactly subservient to the dominant trends. The freedom to express oneself is paramount for individuality and that freedom is all but guaranteed under liberty. J.S Mill is of the same view as Voltaire when he said, and to paraphrase, "I may not agree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Libertarianism is ultimately, the way forward out of the darkness of bigotry.  

 To conclude, it is imperative that the spirit of individuality must be sustained. We live in a polarized world which necessitates state suppression in the form of totalitarian control. The dystopias envisioned by Orwell, Philip K. Dick etc. are materializing. It is imperative that the flag-bearers of civil liberties stand tall and steadfast. Populist rhetoric is at its peak, swaying many into a herd mentality. Truth may not rear its head in conformity, but it certainly gets buried in it. The power of the pen is greater than the power of the sword. The tireless fingers that type those words, whether they be in the form of social media posts or YouTube video scripts, are stronger than the public scrutiny or the algorithm 'ratoing' or 'demonetizing'. We are free, yet we aren't. States are partisan to apartheid where individuals raise their voice for the oppressed and the marginalized. Even in our own backyard, we have the 'firewall' to curb suppression. Thus, all the more reason, to be vocal. Silence is being complicit. Or conforming to the general apathy, if not anything else.