The Failure of Liberalism

It is with a stern and heavy heart that I announce the abject failure of Liberalism. This statement is
not through flippancy but comes from looking at the world around us. In amongst the news stories
about the Panama Papers and the Global Economic Crisis the question of 'what went wrong'
seems to keep coming back to us. In the 21st Century, with laws, regulations and systems in place,
the world is still a very unequal place where the rich seems to play with the lives and prosperity of
millions. Is it just human nature? Are we destined to carry on making these mistakes and living in
such an unequal world. Perhaps we made a wrong turn some where. Perhaps we chose to emphasise
the wrong characteristics from the myriad of possibilities.
There are many things in this world that we
take for granted: unwritten rules of behaviour or
basic principles of right or wrong. However,
most things have at one point in our history
actually been debated and decided upon. Over
time these ideas then enter the social fabric and
make up our subconscious system for dealing
with the world.
For proof of this we need look no further than the fact that the written constitution has become the
undisputed cornerstone of state creation. No sooner has a desire for independence or 'regime
change' been aired then a call is made for, and subsequent work is carried out on, a written
constitution. In fact few countries, with the United Kingdom being a notable exception, do without
having a codified constitution. Yet, the prevalence of the written constitution today does not
necessarily mean that they exist in order to proclaim and embody a higher truth. Whilst Plato
extrapolated the details of his 'Republic' in order to deal with often practical concerns, he never the
less was attempting to discover a route to justice as Benjamin Jowett1 explained in his introduction:
(...) for justice is the order of the State, and the State is the visible embodiment of
justice under the conditions of human society. The one is the soul and the other is
the body, and the Greek ideal of the State, as of the individual, is a fair mind in a fair
body. In Hegelian phraseology the state is the reality of which justice is the idea.
(Jowett. 2014)

It is a matter of somewhat questionable certainty whether we could say the same today. Where the
state is the embodiment of the constitution it therefore holds that the constitution should, be striving
to describe the ideal: the higher truth; justice. Alas, we often relegate this concept to the realm of the
judiciary, happy that the right to a fair trial and freedom of speech absolves us of seeking justice in
all its forms. On the fringes of the debate we hear mention of social justice and placate ourselves
with some forms of charitable work or donation. We have however missed the point somewhat.
Whilst our states and their formative constitutions are clear and practical legal documents for all to
admire, few, I would hesitate, are devised with a clear understanding of what truth is in itself; but
rather they copy and pass on an idea of certain natural rights. They therefore strive to achieve a fair
balanced society without actually knowing what one is. Inevitably they are reactionary, that is
attempting to correct the errors of prior systems. This being the case they often overcompensate in
some way or rely on generally accepted concepts of justice in order to appease all.
Europe as a whole has in fact arrived at a point in history where the only truly acceptable form of
constitution, and therefore state, is one that provides for a representative democracy. This has
become such an accepted part of European politics that it has been enshrined in the European Union
1

See http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm accessed 4th April 2016

treaties as well as in the Washington Treaty. The second feature that has become unquestionable is
the existence of a capitalist economy. European states are engineered in such a way as to be
conducive to this arrangement and in fact create the impression that there is no other viable form.
This is further strengthened by the four pillars of the EU, placing emphasis on flow of capital
amongst other things.
However, whilst some prominent economists have over the centuries explored the benefits and
drawbacks of a capitalist economy their ideas do not seem to have been fundamental to
contemporary constitutions; moreover, that little thought has been done on what the best basis of
any give constitution should be seems evident from the essential preamble to the constitutions;
where little emphasis is placed on defining and justifying the economic system preferred and in fact
these seem to paraphrase each other.
Modern constitutions have followed on from enlightenment thinking by expounding the natural
nature of certain features. The Polish Constitution of 19972 for example talks in its preamble of
universal values deriving either from God or another source as believed by each individual. These
values are "truth, justice, good and beauty". However, the preamble states them rather in passing as
opposed to making direct reference to them:
Having regard for the existence and future of our Homeland,Which recovered, in
1989, the possibility of a sovereign and democratic determination of its fate,We, the
Polish Nation - all citizens of the Republic, Both those who believe in God as the
source of truth, justice, good and beauty,As well as those not sharing such faith but
respecting those universal values as arising from other sources,Equal in rights and
obligations towards the common good - Poland ()

It is not of course the case that concepts of a definitive truth have never been directly dealt with in
other constitutions. It follows that concepts proclaimed in the American Declaration of
Independence were still held by the writers of the US Constitution3, the most famous of which were:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness.

However, we see that the framers believed that certain rights were self-evident. This, is from a
philosophical point of view somewhat of an empty statement 4. That said, if we take that they are
indeed self-evident then we must question what actual rights have been put forward. Life, Liberty
and Happiness are enshrined in the US Constitution yet are we to believe that these represent
justice? Is having the liberty to live in poverty just? The writers of the constitution were in fact
heavily influenced by John Locke and his ideas of 'Natural Law'. The phrase 'self evident' thus
concerns the natural 'god given' nature of such rights.
2

See http://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm accessed 4th April 2016

See http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/ accessed 4th April 2016

See https://philosophynow.org/issues/21/What_is_natural_about_Natural_Rights accessed 4th April 2016

Moreover, there is still ongoing debate as to the relationship in Locke's

theories between natural rights and natural law. It is possible that Locke's
natural laws were merely conjectures of his stance on natural rights. Natural
rights in turn are a somewhat basic appraisal of our animal instincts and do
not elevate us beyond the animal level. Thus it could be argued that basing a
constitution, and thus society, upon such natural law encourages inequality
and hinders our development. Even within Classical Liberalism (of which
Locke was a founding father) there were opposing camps: Jeremy Bentham
(prominent Utilitarianist) for instance was adamantly opposed to the idea of
natural rights claiming that they encouraged and in fact led to anarchy.
John Locke

Returning to Poland, in comparison Poland's constitution removed itself even further from the
philosophical premise that such rights exist. By focusing on the holder of such beliefs and their
equality before the law the Polish Constitution sterilised the effectiveness of said rights. This is
perhaps in part due to the unspoken belief in the validity of such rights and methods as eluded to
above. The Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizen (French: Dclaration des droits de
l'homme et du citoyen), has unsurprisingly had a great influence on much of political thought since
its publication in 1789. It's quite broad assertions, based on natural law theory, have affected both
state and institutional constitutions and charters. It is in fact still quoted in the preamble to the
current French Constitution of 19585:
The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the Rights of Man and the principles of
national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789, confirmed and complemented by the
Preamble to the Constitution of 1946.
By virtue of these principles and that of the self-determination of peoples, the Republic offers to the
overseas territories that express the will to adhere to them new institutions founded on the common
ideal of liberty, equality and fraternity and conceived with a view to their democratic development.

However, France's interpretation of such rights is somewhat controversial. Take for instance the first
article ensuring equality:
France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of
all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs.

The equality has been taken to mean no right to express yourself if it infringes on anothers
sensibilities and thus all religions signs are banned in public. Here it would be easy to question
whether justice has truly been found in the Platonic sense.
In broader terms, the very universal and inalienable nature of such rights poses though a problem as
to what extent these rights have become mere window dressing. Stated, but rarely implemented. For
that matter, is natural law theory still a viable concept? Natural Law theory inevitably promotes the
individual as the basis of organisation. In an interconnected and multicultural world perhaps
emphasis should indeed be placed upon other things.
Furthermore, returning to the opening paragraph, has natural law theory and liberalism actually led
us astray? It promotes individualism and the idea that property and yourself are the key features of
life. Its no wonder that, with these as the underlining values of our society, we are in such a mess
today, four hundred years after John Locke put pen to paper. It is time to move on; to start to think
again. If we are ever to develop as a society we must rethink our most basic concepts.

See http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/english/constitution/constitution-of-4-october1958.25742.html accessed 4th April 2016