THE MANY FACES OF FREEDOM

Freedom is a complex and multifaceted concept that goes beyond political rights to include economic, moral, and personal dimensions. These different aspects shape the way individuals experience and understand liberty in their daily lives. Exploring how these freedoms coexist, interact, and sometimes conflict is essential to understanding the broader notion of freedom. This discussion becomes particularly compelling when examining societies such as China, where high levels of public safety coexist with significant political restrictions, challenging traditional Western views of what it means to be truly free.

A Balancing Act: Political, Economic, and Personal Freedoms

Freedom can be broadly categorised into two thematic areas: political versus economic freedom and personal security versus autonomy. These distinctions help clarify the multifaceted nature of freedom and its implications in different societal contexts. Political freedom refers to the rights that allow individuals to participate in the governance of their society, such as voting, expressing political opinions, and running for office. It is often seen as the cornerstone of democratic societies as it enables citizens to hold their governments accountable. Economic freedom focuses on the ability to engage in economic activities with minimal interference. This includes the rights to own property, start businesses, and participate in free markets. Both political and economic freedoms contribute to a society's prosperity and individuals' sense of liberty. Furthermore, the relationship between personal security and autonomy is another critical aspect of freedom. Personal security ensures that individuals can live without fear of violence or crime, which is fundamental for exercising autonomy.

A safe environment allows people to go about their daily lives without constant concern for their safety, enhancing their overall sense of freedom. However, achieving high levels of security often involves trade-offs with personal autonomy, such as increased surveillance or stricter law enforcement. This is a famous concept in political philosophy science referred to as positive and negative freedom by Isaiah Berlin. Isaiah Berlin’s concept of negative freedom is the absence of external interference, allowing individuals to act without being constrained by others—freedom from control. Positive freedom, on the other hand, is the ability to control one’s own life and achieve personal goals, often requiring support or empowerment. Berlin warned that positive freedom could lead to authoritarianism, as authorities might impose their views of what is best for individuals. He favoured negative freedom for its focus on personal autonomy without the risk of paternalism. This tension raises important questions about how societies can balance protecting citizens and preserving their rights to privacy and personal freedom. After considering these distinct yet interconnected forms of freedom, doesn’t it seem surprising that we use just one word—‘freedom’—to describe such a wide array of experiences and conditions?

The Paradox of Freedom in China

China presents a compelling paradox in the global conversation about freedom. Although international indices categorise China as "Not Free" due to extensive state control and restrictions on political, economic and religious liberties, personal experiences often reveal a different narrative, especially regarding safety and freedom of movement. This contrast challenges traditional Western perspectives on what it means to be free. Indices such as the Freedom in the World report and the Human Freedom Index prioritise political freedoms, such as the right to vote, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. In these respects, China scores low due to strict censorship, lack of political opposition, and constraints on personal expression, reinforcing its reputation for limited freedom. However, other dimensions of freedom, such as personal safety and security, significantly influence how individuals experience their daily lives. Many residents and expatriates in Chinese cities report feeling extremely safe, whether walking alone at night, leaving belongings unattended, or using public transportation. This sense of security arises from strict law enforcement, widespread surveillance, and low crime rates, especially violent crime. 

While measures may limit political freedom, they enhance everyday safety, offering a different form of freedom: living without fear of harm. Moreover, global safety indices, such as the Safe Cities Index and the Numbeo Crime Index, highlight cities such as London, Amsterdam, and Toronto as among the safest. Having lived in and visited these cities, I initially shared this perception. However, moving to Shanghai revealed an even greater sense of safety. This experience suggests that high levels of public security can coexist with limited political freedoms, offering a form of personal liberty overlooked by traditional indices. An illustrative personal experience highlights this paradox further. In many Western countries, women are often advised against walking home alone at night due to safety concerns, as the risk of encountering a potential attacker is seen as a significant threat. This advice, while aiming to protect individuals, essentially restricts the freedom of movement for half the population based on the actions of a minuscule percentage of offenders. In China, however, such concerns are less pronounced. The strong emphasis on public safety and zero tolerance for violent crime creates an environment where women feel safe moving about freely, even at night. This approach reflects a societal stance that does not tolerate the injustice of limiting the freedom of the majority due to the actions of a few. This contrast raises questions about whether Western societies have, perhaps inadvertently, accepted a level of insecurity that limits personal freedom under the guise of caution.

Returning to Amsterdam, the common use of heavy locks (weighing up to 5 kg) to secure bicycles—once normal to me—now seemed an acceptance of crime as a daily reality. This contrast raises questions about whether Western societies, by focusing heavily on political freedoms, have undervalued the importance of personal security. These observations challenge the conventional view that equates freedom solely with political rights. China's emphasis on public safety over political freedoms suggests a different balance, prioritising personal security. This raises questions about the nature of freedom: Can societies achieve both high political freedom and robust public safety? Ideally, individuals should express political views openly and live without fear for their safety. However, achieving this balance is challenging. Societies such as China prioritise safety, sometimes at the expense of political freedoms, while others emphasise political rights, occasionally overlooking personal security. Restricting attackers from the streets at night or harshly punishing bike theft might seem like a restriction on negative freedoms. 

However, these measures enhance positive freedom by allowing others to walk safely at night or leave their bikes without worry. By ensuring public safety, the government increases meaningful choices, such as the freedom to move about freely. Another example, compulsory education, could seem like a restriction on freedom in the short term from the perspective of negative freedom. However, in the long run, it enhances positive freedom by equipping children with essential skills—such as reading, writing, and math—that give them more valuable choices as adults. Yet, this raises an important challenge: Who decides which freedoms are most valuable? When the government enforces such measures, it risks becoming paternalistic, guiding individuals toward what it sees as a “better” life. This is where autonomy becomes crucial. While positive freedom involves providing valuable choices, autonomy emphasizes the ability to make those choices independently. The balance between protecting safety and preserving individual autonomy is delicate. A government that prioritizes public safety must be cautious not to become overly paternalistic, restricting freedoms in the name of protection while undermining personal independence. 

It is crucial to recognise that China has significant limitations on political freedom, which is a significant concern. The restrictions on freedom of speech, press, and political participation limit individuals' ability to express their views, criticise the government, or engage in political dissent. Additionally, China does not have freedom of religion, a fundamental type of freedom that allows individuals to practice, change, or reject religious beliefs without coercion. These limitations on political and religious freedoms are critical issues that must be addressed and should be the subject of ongoing discussion and awareness. This article does not aim to downplay the importance of these freedoms. Rather, it seeks to provide a broader perspective on freedom by highlighting forms of freedom that are often overlooked, such as the sense of personal safety and freedom of movement experienced by many in China. 

Balancing personal freedom and public safety requires a nuanced approach. While punitive measures and surveillance can deter crime, cultural norms, social factors, and socio-economic conditions often play a more significant role in shaping safety. China’s evolving approach to issues such as drug abuse, and incorporating healthcare strategies, reflects a shift toward addressing social factors rather than relying solely on punitive actions. Although extensive surveillance enhances safety, it raises ethical concerns about privacy and potential overreach. Achieving a balance requires transparency and accountability to avoid infringing on civil liberties and eroding public trust. 

The Freedom Paradox: Security, Autonomy, and the Reimagining of Liberty

The concept of freedom is inherently complex, encompassing political rights and economic, moral, and personal dimensions. The case of China vividly illustrates how different types of freedom can coexist and interact, sometimes creating tensions that challenge conventional understandings of freedom. While China's limited political freedoms draw criticism from international indices, the country's emphasis on public safety and personal security offers a contrasting form of freedom that is deeply valued by many of its residents.

This paradox invites us to reconsider the traditional Western-centric view of freedom, which often prioritises political rights above all else. China's approach underscores the significance of personal safety as a fundamental aspect of lived freedom, suggesting that feeling secure in one's environment is as crucial to individual liberty as the right to vote or speak freely. The experiences of safety and autonomy in Chinese cities challenge us to broaden our definition of freedom, including the right to live without fear of harm.

Balancing political freedom with personal security is a complex challenge that demands a careful approach. It is crucial to respect individual rights while addressing society’s need for safety and order. As we navigate these complexities, we must remain vigilant about the risk of government overreach in the name of security, ensuring that surveillance and law enforcement measures do not infringe upon personal privacy and civil liberties. Maintaining this balance requires transparency, accountability, and an ongoing public dialogue. Ultimately, pursuing freedom must consider the diverse dimensions that contribute to human well-being and dignity. It requires a nuanced approach that respects individual rights and autonomy while ensuring public safety and security. Striving for a society where all forms of freedom can coexist harmoniously is not only possible but essential for fostering environments where individuals can thrive, feel secure, and exercise their rights without fear. As we continue to explore and promote freedom worldwide, it is crucial to remain open to different perspectives and to recognise the importance of balancing various liberties in ways that align with the values and aspirations of each society.