When I think of democracy in relation to a country, the United States comes instantly to mind. The USA, however, is just one of many democracies which exist today under a multitude of different names: parliamentary republic, parliamentary democracy, direct democracy, constitutional parliamentary republic, federal presidential constitutional republic, etc. In this post, “democracy” will be understood to be a political system wherein the people possess the ability to express, by vote, their preference for the laws and leaders which govern them. Can you guess which democratic countries were ranked as having the most intellectual freedom by Reporters without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontiers)? Hint- neither the US nor Canada were in the top five.
In an ideal democratic system, voters’ choices are informed. Having considered all the options, the best one, or rather, the one believed to be best, is chosen. In this way, intellectual freedom supports democracy. It provides us with the ability to access the information we need to make an informed decision. Consider the case of Uzbekistan, a presidential republic in which people vote. Intellectual freedom is not protected in Uzbekistan, and there is little freedom of expression. When questioned by a reporter, a resident of the capital said, “’Most people just don't watch the news, because we know that it's pure propaganda and has nothing to do with reality’” (Antelava). Can the Uzbeks be said to have a true democracy? Or does the lack of intellectual freedom force them into a sort of inevitable dictatorship, unable to choose from several candidates, or hear criticism against their current leader?
I would argue that democracy requires intellectual freedom. Theoretically, however, simply having intellectual freedom does not guarantee democracy. If the vast majority of the populace looked upon the laws of dictator, and practicing intellectual freedom, compared, debated, and criticized these laws, and found them to be just, than intellectual freedom could co-exist with a dictatorship. I cannot find an example of this having occurred in this century.
There is one example which goes far towards proving that intellectual freedom cannot co-exist with a totalitarian regime. In 1957, Mao Zedong was leading the communist party in China. Chairman Mao decided that the party could use some helpful criticism, and encouraged intellectuals to present their critiques. This was called the Hundred Flowers Campaign, named for a poem: "Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend." The people of China responded. There were protests and debates. Articles criticizing party members were published, and thousands of letters were sent with ideas for political reform. For six weeks, the flowers bloomed. But the criticism turned towards Chairman Mao, and he felt it was unjust. The Hundred Flowers Campaign was shut down, and many of those who had spoken up were imprisoned or forced into hard labor (Cheng; Neih). Intellectual freedom was found to be incompatible with the regime. Do you think that Chairman Mao would have been able to stay in power if he’d let the Hundred Flowers continue? Do you know of an example of intellectual freedom in a country without a democracy?
Our question asks about intellectual freedom supporting democracy, but I would like to touch briefly on how, or rather if, democracy supports intellectual freedom. In a democracy the majority is said to rule. During the Cold War, many books on communism were deemed inappropriate for public libraries and pulled from the shelves (Robbins). These books were removed by council members who were elected democratically, and they democratically voted to get rid of the books. Intellectual freedom was countermanded, not supported, by this democracy. Do you believe that democracy supports intellectual freedom? How?
Intellectual freedom needs to exist in spite of the political system, not simply in support of it. Libraries have a duty to present all the sides of argument, even if the ruling majority does not want to look. It was the majority, after all, who thought the sun rotated around the earth, and that slavery was acceptable, and that homosexuality was a psychiatric disorder. And now that these views have been debunked or fallen into the minority, they must yet remain on our shelves (Doyle; Schlesinger). If there is only one option, then it is no option at all, for it cannot be proved correct by reference to what is incorrect. Democracy is based on the ability to choose, and without intellectual freedom, informed choices cannot exist.
Sources
Antelava, Natalia. (2007, Dec. 19). Uzbekistan’s Silenced Society. BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7150697.stmCheng, Huanwen. (Winter 2001). The Effect of the Cold War on Librarianship in China. Libraries & the Cultural Record, 36 (1), 40-50.
Doyle, Tony. (Jan. 2001). A Utilitarian Case for Intellectual Freedom in Libraries. The Library Quarterly, 71 (1), 44-71.
Nieh, Hualing. (Ed.). (1981). Literature of the Hundred Flowers: Criticism and polemics. Chichester, New York: Columbia University Press.
Reporters Without Borders. (2010). Press Freedom Index. http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1034
Robbins, Louise S. (Winter 2001). The Overseas Libraries Controversy and the Freedom to Read: U.S. Librarians and Publishers Confront Joseph McCarthy. Libraries & the Cultural Record, 36 (1), 27-39.
Schlesinger, Arthur Jr. (Sep.-Oct. 1997). Has Democracy a Future? Foreign Affairs, 76 (5), 2-12.
2010 Countries with the most intellectual freedom as ranked by
Reporters Without Borders:
- Finland
- Iceland
- Norway
- Netherlands
- Sweden
I do think that democracy supports intellectual freedom. It certainly isn't a necessity, as one is always free to think whatever they like.
ReplyDeleteVaclav Havel (former President of the Czech Republic) is a very interesting person. As a poet and playwright he and a group of other creatives led the Velvet Revolution that brought an end to communism in Czechoslovakia. I recommend his book, Disturbing the Peace. He talks about the intellectual underground movement that led to the Velvet Revolution. He and others in Czechoslovakia clearly practiced intellectual freedom before they could do so publicly without fear.
While there was some agreement to take communist books from shelves in overseas libraries during the Cold War, there were still protests to this action, notably from the ALA at the annual conference in 1953. Many of those who collaborated with the censure of supposed communist materials were intimidated or afraid to speak out against those who were currently in power. Even though those in power were democratically elected, they were still abusing their power. To oppose McCarthy took a lot of courage.
ReplyDeleteThe question you pose at the end of your paragraph on intellectual freedom and democracy is interesting, too. I would think democracy is important to intellectual freedom. As seen in countries without democracy, only a brave few are able to fully participate in intellectual freedom and it’s mostly done at great personal risk and underground out-of-sight of the current government. While current technology is helping to expand intellectual freedom in non-democratic countries, i.e. through social networking as with the Arab Spring, it’s still extremely difficult to have a majority of the population participating in intellectual freedom without a democracy.