Equality and Liberalism

The concept of equality is a multi-faceted one, meaning many groups, all with competing ideologies, can claim to be supporters of equality. In order to understand how this can be, we must outline the various forms of equality that can be considered.

Foundational Equality

Foundational equality is best summed up in the American Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, which states as a self-evident truth that '...all men are created equal...' and linking this equality to certain 'unalienable rights' - which were, in Jefferson's mind, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This notion of a innate, moral equality can be traced back to John Locke's Two Treaties of Government (1690). Locke believed human equality was part of a Law of Nature, arguing that no person was granted superiority over another simply by virtue of birth. Like Jefferson, Locke's foundational equality was closely tied to a set of universal, natural rights - life, liberty and property - to which all humans were entitled, by virtue of their humanity.

For many liberal Enlightenment thinkers, this adherence to foundational equality relied on an assumption of its existence given no evidence to the contrary - there is no reason to assume humans are born unequal, therefore the simplest assumption is that they are equal. However, the New Zealand Professor Jeremy Waldron has argued Locke's belief in foundational equality was rooted in his religious beliefs.

Formal Equality

Liberal support for formal equality, most commonly described as equality in the eyes of the law, is closely linked to foundational equality. Given liberals' beliefs that the law exists to secure individual freedoms, and their conviction that individuals have an equal right to freedom, it follows that all individuals should be treated equally by the law. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states: 'All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law'.

An interesting example of liberal concern with formal equality is J S Mill's paragraph on the swearing of oaths in a court of law. In Mill's time, to swear an oath in a court of law, you were required to profess a belief in God and an afterlife. This meant that atheists were made 'outlaws' - they could not swear an oath to provide testimony or sit on a jury. As Mill put it, this meant they 'may be robbed or assaulted with impunity.' He also pointed out that this barrier to justice created the ironic situation where atheists willing to lie were able to provide testimony (having sworn an oath), whilst 'honest' atheists maybe so truthful they were unprepared to lie to swear the oath. You can almost see Mill's (and Harriet Taylor's) wry smiles as you read the words.

Equality of Opportunity

Now we get to the meaty stuff. Liberals' views on equality are often summarised as 'a belief in equality of opportunity not equality of outcome.' The Liberal Democrat website states they 'believe strongly in individual liberty and equality of opportunity.' But what does it mean to believe in equality of opportunity?

Classical liberals essentially believe that we were born with equal opportunities to rise and fall based on our merits and effort. They believed you deserved to 'get out what you put in.' This, therefore, means they do not believe in equality of outcome. For people to be able to rise and fall in a mechanistic society, there have to be unequal levels for them to rise and fall to. 

At it's most extreme, this kind of equality of opportunity becomes Social Darwinism - a societal survival of the fittest where, as William Sumner puts it, 'a drunk in the gutter is just where he ought to be.' Sumner contended it was not the duty of the state or others to make men (and women, presumably) happy, it was their own responsibility. Similar ideas were expressed by Samuel Smiles in his book, 'Self Help.'

Modern (progressive) liberals, who adhere to a positive concept of freedom, have concerns that this view of equality of opportunity does not make allowances for the gross inequalities that afflict people from birth. As a consequence, they do see a role for the state in creating equality of opportunity, by generating social justice; trying to ensure that obstacles to opportunity are removed. T.H. Green, an early modern liberal, described the inequalities the created by capitalist system that had produced a poor, disenfranchised urban working class living in slums and with little opportunity to progress. He argued that the state had a duty to enable people to achieve self-realisation - to become the very best they could be. In contrast to Sumner, Green thought the state could and should step in to free the drunk in the gutter from his 'enslavement' to alcohol.

When we look at present day UK politics, we see these contrasting views of equality of opportunity being played out. Arguments for a benefits cap, and 'making work pay' hark back to Sumner and Smiles belief that it was important for individuals to help themselves, whereas support for policies such as universal free school meals and calls for the elite universities to admit more working class students reflect a modern liberal attempt to create, rather than assume, equality of opportunity.


So, can we say liberals do or don't believe in equality? What would your answer be? And do the different concepts of equality of opportunity held by classical and modern liberals mean that they are really separate ideologies? What is it about their views of equality that enable them to both be described as liberalism?

Revision: Electoral Systems

© 2015 dbaker

SPEAKER'S LECTURE 2015

SPEAKER'S LECTURE 2015

On 2^nd March, WPGP attended the Speaker’s Lecture at Portcullis House. The title of the lecture was ‘A House Rebuilt – Progress, Governance and an Agenda towards 2020.’

Mr Bercow used the lecture as a chance to reflect on reforms to parliament since he became speaker in 2009, and to propose foci for future reform.

He opened with some comments on the recent BBC series ‘Inside the Commons,' describing how some MPs had feared letting cameras into the Commons in such way would be as if ‘letting light in on magic.’ He argued that, overall, the series had been a success, and had been met with sympathetically by the public.

He then went on to lay out three factors he considered important for parliament to be successful in the modern world. These were:

1. That it be an effective legislature
2. That it be closely connected to the public
3. That it be a model employer

He commented that the 2010 election had brought 227 new MPs into the Commons, and that this shot of ‘new blood’ had coincided with considerable changes to parliament, many stemming from the expenses scandal of 2009.

Mr Bercow listed examples of reforms and results already achieved, which included:

• The resurrection of the Urgent Question (UQ) as a method for making minsters accountable to parliament. Between June 2008 and June 2009 (before Bercow became Speaker) the UQ was used twice. From June 2009 to the beginning of March 2015, there have been 211 UQs.
• The increasing likelihood of ministers making statements to the House, instead of in the press, resulting from the more prolific use of UQs.
• The election of Select Committee Chairs by MPs, rather than their appointment by the main parties. This has entrenched the independence of Select Committees and increased their power and significance. Examples given included:
  • The role of the Home Affairs Select Committee in investigating the issue of FGM
  • The importance of the Treasury Committee's continued work on the banking crisis
• The formation of the Backbench Business Committee and its effectiveness, for example in securing a Commons debate on disclosure of documents connected to the Hillsborough Disaster.
• Changes to sitting hours in the Commons.
• Over 750 events held in Speaker’s House, making it a public resource.
• The commissioning of a new parliamentary education centre.
• The institution of the Speaker’s Lecture series, aired on BBC Parliament.
• The development in a number of universities of ‘Parliamentary Studies’ as part of degree-level Politics courses.
• The raised profile of the UK Youth Parliament, which is chaired by the Speaker every year.
• The opening up of Westminster hall for major speakers (e.g. Barak Obama) and concerts.
• The formation and work of the Digital Democracy Commission.
• The opening of a nursery for MPs and parliamentary employees.
• The abolition of zero-hours contracts for parliamentary employees.
• The accreditation of parliament as a London Living Wage employer.
• The setting up of the Speaker’s Parliamentary Placement Scheme, led by Hazel Blears.
• The separation of the roles of Clerk of the House and Chief Executive for Parliament.

He also set out three aims for the future:

• The formation of a House Business Committee, as recommended by the Wright Committee and proposed in the Coalition Agreement.
• The reform of PMQs.
• The development of the work of the Digital Democracy Commission.

Mr Bercow responded to questions after the lecture and discussed possible reform to Bill Committees and the importance of improved post-legislative scrutiny. When asked about MP Angela Eagle's recent call for a parliamentary sin-bin he said, 'I think there is merit in it. Its not for me to decide, it's for the house to decide.'

As a side note, it was interesting to observe the following day how a two-minute response to a single question as to whether repairs to the Palace of Westminster may cost in the region of £3 billion and may necessitate parliament temporarily abandoning the house, became the major story to come out of the lecture.

The text of the lecture can be found here

Audio can be found here

Liberty

At the core of liberalism is the tenet of liberty. Liberal ideology is built upon the notion of humans as rational beings who should be at liberty to make decisions about their lives without interference from others and, in particular, the state.

This seems simple enough, but how this liberty is defined, its extent, and how it is achieved are all matters for debate even within liberal ideology. Indeed, differing perceptions of liberty are at the heart of the divide between the two major liberal schools of thought - classical and modern.

Liberty - freedom from or freedom to?

Classical Liberalism - Freedom from

The version of liberty as described by early liberal thinkers focuses in large part on 'freedom from', also known as negative freedom. It describes a range of basic freedoms (sometimes known as natural rights) to which all humans are entitled: freedom from harm, imprisonment etc. These were pithily summed up by two key thinkers: John Locke (1632-1704) and Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826):

• Locke - '...life, liberty and estate [property].'
• Jefferson - '...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'

These ideas developed out of: 

a) The (relatively new) Enlightenment view of the world as a rational place that could be understood by individuals, who were rational beings, and who did not need the church, or the aristocracy, to interpret and intercede for them.

b) The furnace of revolution, especially in America and France, which focussed people's minds on the tyranny the state could impose, and how this was best avoided.

Important to this classical version of freedom are laws that curtail the power of the state over the individual (consider the American Bill of Rights), and that distribute the power of the state, to prevent too much power being held in the hands of any one individual or small group. As Thomas Hobbes expressed, 'the definition of liberty is power cut into pieces.'

This focus on protecting the freedoms of the individual from the impositions of others, trying to delineate exactly when others (or the state) had a right to step in, remained a major focus for liberalism up until the end of the 19th century. For example, Jeremy Bentham explored how laws were essential for guaranteeing liberty, and J.S. Mill explored the difference between self-regarding and other-regarding actions - the harm principle.

Modern Liberalism - freedom to

By the end of the 19th century, some liberals were becoming concerned that an increasingly liberal world, and in particular a free (that word again) market, had not provided benefits for all. This was most obvious in the urban slums that had grown up to serve the mills and factories that were the bedrock of the industrial revolution. They began to conceive of another form of freedom: positive freedom, or the freedom to fulfil one's own potential.

As they saw it, humans had the right to be free to achieve all that they could. They perceived that the world did not gift everyone the same advantages at birth, and that some were 'freer' than others to do well in the world - a comfortable home, a good education and a full belly are useful foundations for success, but in the 19th century, they were most certainly not available to all.

This led Modern liberals to develop a different view of the state. Instead of seeking a 'nightwatchman state' (Locke), which made sure people did not impinge on each other's freedoms and not much else, they saw the state as having a duty to generate greater equality of opportunity, and to create greater social justice. The early flag-waver for this movement was T. H. Green, but it is probably best exemplified by the increasing drive by Liberal governments to promote universal education and a basic pension, and in the recommendations of the Beveridge Report, out of which grew the welfare state. It is to be remembered that, although many of the reports recommendations were implemented by Atlee's post-war Labour government, Beveridge himself was a liberal.

So, whilst both classical and modern liberals place great value on liberty, different influences mean that they perceive it in different ways. This in turn leads to different views on the role of (and therefore the size of) the state, and gives examiners plenty of scope to ask questions about whether the two strands can really be considered one ideology. What would your answer be?