Ancient vs. Modern Liberties

Benjamin Constant's Insights on Contemporary European Politics

Abstract

This paper applies Benjamin Constant’s distinction between ancient and modern liberty to analyze contemporary Portuguese and European politics. Constant’s framework reveals the tension between collective decision-making and individual freedoms in Portugal and the EU. Ancient liberty emphasizes collective sovereignty, contrasting with modern liberty’s focus on personal rights and independence. These concepts are explored through issues like EU governance, Portuguese democracy, and the balance between public health measures and individual freedoms amid COVID-19. Constant’s insights prove relevant in understanding modern democratic complexities, highlighting the challenge of balancing collective interests with protecting individual liberties.

Introduction

Benjamin Constant's "The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns" provides a timeless framework for understanding the interaction between collective governance and individual freedoms in political systems. This paper applies Constant's insights to analyze contemporary Portuguese and European politics, focusing on tensions between collective decision-making and personal autonomy. Constant's foundational text examines the fundamental difference between ancient and modern liberty, which remains relevant today. Ancient liberty emphasizes collective political power and active citizen involvement in governance, as seen in societies like ancient Athens. However, this active participation often restricted individual freedoms, prioritizing communal welfare over personal interests.

In contrast, modern liberty places a premium on individual rights and personal autonomy. As societies evolved and diversified, governance structures adapted to accommodate the complexities of modern life. Modern democracies prioritize safeguarding personal freedoms such as freedom of speech, privacy, and property rights, often through representative democracy where elected officials make decisions on behalf of the populace. The shift from collective to individual sovereignty marks a significant departure from ancient ideals, reflecting the evolution of societal values and governance models.1

Drawing from Constant's framework, this paper applies it to contemporary Portuguese and European politics, especially within the European Union. The EU's governance structure, blending direct and representative democracy, embodies the tension between ancient and modern liberty. Institutions such as the European Parliament and the European Council enable collective decision-making among member states while safeguarding individual rights outlined in the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights.2

Portugal's political landscape further exemplifies the delicate balance between collective participation and individual freedoms. The country's democratic processes, grounded in representative democracy, reflect the modern emphasis on indirect governance.3 Citizens elect representatives to the Assembly of the Republic, where legislative decisions are made on their behalf. Constitutional guarantees ensure the protection of civil liberties, aligning with Constant's notion of modern liberty and the primacy of individual rights. However, contemporary political challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, underscore the enduring relevance of Constant's framework. The pandemic necessitated unprecedented government intervention to mitigate public health risks, leading to debates over the extent to which individual freedoms should be curtailed in the interest of collective safety.4 Similarly, issues surrounding surveillance, privacy, and economic policies highlight the perpetual struggle to reconcile collective imperatives with individual autonomy.5

Benjamin Constant's distinction between ancient and modern liberty provides crucial insights into today's democratic governance. His ideas illuminate the ongoing challenge of balancing collective interests with individual freedoms in Portuguese and European politics. By grasping the nuances of ancient and modern liberty, we gain a deeper understanding of the complexities in modern democratic societies, ensuring the protection of liberty and justice for all citizens.6

Key Concepts from Constant

Ancient liberty, as envisioned by Constant, depicts an era where collective political authority was paramount. In societies like Athens, citizens actively participated in governance, influencing decisions on laws, war declarations, and judicial matters. Citizenship entailed a duty to contribute to the common good, reflecting a vibrant democracy. Yet, this ethos often required individuals to prioritise communal welfare over personal interests, underscoring the trade-off inherent in ancient liberty.7 In ancient Athenian democracy, citizenship meant active engagement in public affairs, reflecting direct sovereignty. All citizens, irrespective of social status, contributed to collective decision-making, fostering a shared identity. However, this participatory system often curtailed personal liberties, emphasizing state interests over individual rights, highlighting the intricate balance between communal unity and individual freedom.

Contrasting the concept of ancient liberty, modern societies have charted a different course, prioritizing the sanctity of individual freedoms and personal autonomy. As societies evolved and complexities mounted, the need for a new paradigm of governance became apparent. Modern liberty emerged as the cornerstone of this new era, championing personal rights such as freedom of speech, property rights, and the right to privacy. In the modern democratic landscape, political participation has undergone a transformation, shifting from direct engagement to indirect representation through mechanisms like representative democracy.8 Citizens now delegate decision-making authority to elected officials, preferring to safeguard their personal liberties rather than actively partake in collective governance.9

The modern citizen, imbued with a sense of individualism and self-determination, cherishes the sanctuary of private life and guards against encroachments by the state. In the pursuit of modern liberty, the protection of personal freedoms assumes paramount importance, eclipsing the allure of collective decision-making. As societies grapple with the complexities of governance in the modern age, the tension between collective interests and individual rights remains palpable, emphasizing the enduring relevance of Constant's insights.

Throughout history, liberalism has evolved significantly, grappling with diverse challenges and evolving fears. In the 19th century, liberalism intertwined with religion and morality, with figures such as John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville highlighting the moral foundations of a liberal society. Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" stressed individual rights and warned against majority tyranny, akin to Constant's distinction between personal and collective freedoms. Post-World War I, modern liberalism confronted totalitarianism, poverty, and inequality, themes expanded upon by Friedrich Hayek, John Rawls, and Milton Friedman.

Today, modern liberals face challenges like populism, exacerbated by the absence of a unified moral or religious framework, complicating responses to contemporary political dilemmas. The historical evolution from religious extremism to poverty and totalitarianism underscores liberalism's adaptive yet fragmented nature. James Madison's Federalist No. 10, advocating for diverse factions and checks on power, aligns with Constant's call for balancing collective governance and individual autonomy.

In contemporary politics, the dichotomy between ancient and modern liberty guides navigation, illuminating the path to harmonizing collective governance with individual autonomy. Ancient Athens exemplifies collective action and solidarity, while modern liberty emphasizes individual rights. Constant's framework offers a lens for reconciling community welfare with personal liberty, ensuring that the beacon of freedom shines brightly in governance.

Application to Contemporary Portuguese and European Politics

The European Union (EU) embodies the intricate interplay between ancient and modern notions of liberty, striking a delicate balance between collective sovereignty and individual rights. This synthesis is evident in the EU's governance framework, where institutions like the European Parliament and the European Council serve as forums for integrating ancient principles of collective decision-making with modern ideals of individual autonomy.

The EU's decision-making process hinges on collective deliberation, reflecting ancient governance models where representatives of the collective voice wield authority. The European Parliament, composed of directly elected members from member states, echoes ancient assemblies where citizens actively participated in politics. Similarly, the European Council, comprised of heads of state or government, mirrors ancient collective sovereignty, where leaders converge to shape the union's direction. However, achieving consensus is complex, as divergent national interests require intricate negotiations and compromises, akin to the dynamics of ancient city-states.10

Yet, amidst the complexity of collective decision-making, the EU remains steadfast in its commitment to safeguarding individual liberties.11 The EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights stands as a bulwark against encroachments on personal freedoms, enshrining principles such as privacy, freedom of expression, and non-discrimination. In this modern iteration of governance, the protection of individual rights occupies a paramount position, ensuring that policies crafted through collective deliberation do not trample upon the sanctity of personal autonomy.12

In the Portuguese political landscape, echoes of this delicate equilibrium reverberate through the corridors of democratic governance. Portugal's adherence to representative democracy epitomizes the modern ethos of indirect political participation, where citizens empower elected officials to champion their interests in legislative fora.13 Within the Assembly of the Republic's chambers, the spirit of modern liberty flourishes, as elected representatives navigate the intricacies of policymaking, guided by the critical of safeguarding individual rights. Portugal's constitutional guarantees safeguard individual freedoms, akin to Benjamin Constant's modern citadels of liberty. The Portuguese Constitution, a pillar of democratic values, enshrines citizens' rights to freedom of speech, association, and religion. This constitutional foundation, shaped by historical struggles for liberty, ensures minimal state intrusion, preserving Portuguese citizens' personal autonomy.

However, the harmonious interplay between collective decision-making and individual liberties is not devoid of tensions. The COVID-19 pandemic, an epoch-defining crisis, laid bare the fault lines between collective safety imperatives and individual freedoms. Across the EU, including Portugal, governments struggled with the conundrum of imposing stringent public health measures while respecting personal autonomy.14 The pandemic became a crucible for testing the resilience of democratic values, as states strived to strike a delicate balance between the exigencies of public health and the vital of upholding individual rights.15

In today's context of heightened security concerns, European governments have expanded surveillance measures under the guise of collective security imperatives. Yet, this approach frequently conflicts with the modern ideal of personal privacy, highlighting the persistent tension between state surveillance and individual autonomy. Similarly, economic policies and social welfare programs represent an ongoing balancing act between collective support mechanisms and individual freedoms. While welfare initiatives aim to mitigate socio-economic disparities, critics argue they can dampen individual initiative, echoing historical debates over the balance between collective welfare and individual enterprise.16

Therefore, contemporary Portuguese and European politics blend ancient and modern concepts of liberty amidst the complexities of governance today. Benjamin Constant's insights illuminate democratic pathways, advocating for a harmonious balance between collective sovereignty and individual rights. Integrating ancient wisdom with modern ideals aims to foster a future where diverse expressions of liberty thrive, thereby upholding the longstanding legacy of democratic values in Europe's governance.

Personal Freedoms and Public Health: Lessons from COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has acted as a crucible, magnifying the perennial struggle between collective safety imperatives and individual liberties across European nations, including Portugal. As governments wrestled with the crucial of safeguarding public health, they were confronted with the daunting task of balancing these measures with the preservation of individual freedoms.

During the height of the pandemic, stringent measures such as lockdowns, social distancing mandates, and vaccination requirements were deployed to curb the spread of the virus and mitigate its impact on public health.17 These measures were indispensable for safeguarding public health but raised concerns about their implications for individual freedoms, highlighting the delicate balance between protecting public health and upholding rights—a central challenge in democratic governance.

The increase in surveillance by European governments in response to security concerns has intensified debates on privacy rights. While aimed at addressing threats, such measures often encroach on personal autonomy, sparking concerns about privacy erosion in the name of collective security. This clash underscores the complex relationship between historical imperatives for collective security and modern ideals of personal privacy.

Moreover, economic policies and social welfare programs further illuminate the tension between collective support mechanisms and individual freedoms within European nations.18 While welfare programs serve as pillars of support, providing essential services such as healthcare, education, and unemployment benefits, they also face scrutiny for their potential to stifle individual initiative and entrepreneurial endeavours.19 Critics argue that extensive welfare programs can foster dependency and dampen incentives for personal effort, challenging the delicate balance between collective support mechanisms and individual autonomy in fostering societal well-being.20

In conclusion, the examples of tensions highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, surveillance measures, and economic policies underscore the nuanced interplay between collective essential and individual liberties within European societies.21

Conclusion

Benjamin Constant's analysis of ancient and modern liberty is crucial for understanding contemporary Portuguese and European politics, highlighting the enduring tension between collective decision-making and individual liberties in democratic governance. His framework provides a vital perspective on modern democratic systems, emphasizing the ongoing challenge of harmonizing collective interests with protecting individual freedoms. Constant's theoretical contrast between personal and collective freedoms resonates with current debates across the European Union and its member states, including Portugal. These nations struggle with diverse challenges such as public health crises, security threats, and economic policies, where Constant's ideas offer foundational principles for navigating these intricate governance landscapes.

The COVID-19 pandemic has vividly underscored the delicate balance between safeguarding public health and upholding individual liberties, reflecting Constant's concerns about potential encroachments on personal freedoms amidst collective imperatives. Likewise, discussions on surveillance practices and social welfare policies highlight the enduring relevance of Constant's framework in evaluating the trade-offs between societal cohesion and individual autonomy.

In conclusion, Benjamin Constant's insights provide a timeless framework that encourages thoughtful deliberation on the dynamic interplay between collective welfare and individual liberties within European governance. As European nations continue navigating these complexities, Constant's theories remain indispensable in fostering democratic principles that uphold the rights and freedoms of all citizens.

?

?

?

Bibliography

1. Ilievski, N. L. (2015). The individual sovereignty: Conceptualization and manifestation.?Journal of Liberty and International Affairs, 1(2), Article v2_2. Retrieved from?https://e-jlia.com/papers/v2_2.pdf

2. European Union. "How EU Policy Is Decided."?European Union,?https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/law/how-eu-policy-decided_en .

3. Urbinati, N., & Manin, B. (2022).?Is representative democracy really democratic??Books & Ideas. Retrieved from?https://booksandideas.net/Is-representative-democracy-really-democratic

4. National Institutes of Health. (2023). "How NIH-Funded Articles are Submitted to PubMed Central (PMC)".?PMC (PubMed Central). Retrieved from?https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10518637/

5. Surveillance, Privacy and Security.?Edited by Johann ?as, Rocco Bellanova, J. Peter Burgess, Walter Peissl, and Tijs van den Broek. OAPEN Library, 2024.?Link to PDF . DOI: 10.4324/9781315619309. ISBN: 9781138649248, 9781317213543, 9781317213529.

6. Constant, B. (1819). "The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns."

7. Constant, B. (1819). "The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns."

8. Hirano, S., & Ting, M. M. (2012, May).?Direct and Indirect Representation. Retrieved June 14, 2024, from?https://www.columbia.edu/~mmt2033/indirect_democracy.pdf

9. Berthin, G. (2023).?Why are youth dissatisfied with democracy??Retrieved from?https://freedomhouse.org/article/why-are-youth-dissatisfied-democracy

10. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP). (2024).?The state of consensus in the EU: What is the way forward in the debate about expanding qualified majority decisions??Nicolai von Ondarza & Isabella Stürzer.?SWP Comment 2024/C 16, 19.04.2024, 8 Seiten. doi:10.18449/2024C16. Retrieved from?https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2024C16/

11. European Union. (2020).?EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2020-2024: JOINT COMMUNICATION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL, Brussels, 25.3.2020, JOIN (2020) 5 final. Retrieved from?https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52020JC0005

12. Citizens Information. (n.d.).?Charter of Fundamental Rights. Retrieved from?https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government-in-ireland/european-government/eu-law/charter-of-fundamental-rights/

13. Assembly of the Republic. (n.d.).?Website of the Assembly of the Republic. Retrieved from?https://www.parlamento.pt/sites/EN

14. Rutschman, A. S. (2020, July 1).?Portugal's response to COVID-19.?The Regulatory Review. Retrieved from?https://www.theregreview.org/2020/07/01/rutschman-portugal-response-covid-19/

15. National Center for Biotechnology Information. (2020).?Title of the article.?PubMed Central. Retrieved from?https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10469824/

16. Toikko, T., & Rantanen, T. (n.d.).?Association Between Individualism and Welfare Attitudes: An Analysis of Citizens’ Attitudes Towards the State’s Welfare Responsibility.?Journal of Social and Political Psychology, Original Research Reports. Retrieved from?https://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jspp/article/view/5221/5221.html

17. Ricoca Peixoto, V., Vieira, A., Aguiar, P., Carvalho, C., Thomas, D. R., & Abrantes, A. (2020). Initial assessment of the impact of the emergency state lockdown measures on the 1st wave of the COVID-19 epidemic in Portugal.?Acta Medica Portuguesa, Retrieved from?https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.14129

18. Aravacik, E. D. (2018). Social policy and the welfare state. IntechOpen. November 28, 2018.?https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82372

19. James, T. (2023). The welfare state's role and challenges in providing social protection.?Journal Name, 11(2), Opinion Article. Retrieved from?https://www.longdom.org/open-access/the-welfare-states-role-and-challenges-in-providing-social-protection-102214.html

20. Hanna, R. (2019, August 9). Dispelling the myth of welfare dependency.?Social Policy and Development Program, Harvard Kennedy School. Retrieved from?https://epod.cid.harvard.edu/article/dispelling-myth-welfare-dependency

21. Bayer, R. (2007). The continuing tensions between individual rights and public health: Talking point on public health versus civil liberties.?EMBO Reports, 8(12), 1099–1103.?https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7401134

Additional Sources

Constant, B. (1819). "The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns."

European Union. "The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union."

Portuguese Constitution.

Alan Kahan,?Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945?(Princeton University Press, 2020). Retrieved from?Princeton University Press.

Alan Kahan, "Freedom from Fear: An Incomplete History of Liberalism,"?Foreign Affairs?(2020). Retrieved from?Foreign Affairs .

Alan Kahan, "Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945,"?JSTOR?(2020). Retrieved from?JSTOR .

Alan Kahan, "Alan Kahan '80 Explores the History of Liberalism in New Book,"?Princeton Alumni Weekly?(2020). Retrieved from?Princeton Alumni Weekly.

Alan Kahan, "Freedom from Fear,"?New Books Network?(2020). Retrieved from?New Books Network .

Alan Kahan, "Freedom from Fear: A Historical Perspective,"?Taylor & Francis Online?(2023). Retrieved from?Taylor & Francis Online .

Alan Kahan, "Freedom from Fear - Alan Kahan,"?YouTube?(2020). Retrieved from?YouTube .