Sir, – Philip Pettit is to be applauded for his trenchant defence of the ideals of republicanism ("The republican image of freedom offers a moral compass for our country", Opinion & Analysis, May 16th).
His espousal of what is essentially a pluralist vision of politics, one where individual people have the right to live according to their conscience, is to be welcomed, especially when the foolish populism of the far right and the far left is making a comeback.
However, his analysis loses its focus when he introduces the bogeyman of neo-liberalism.
It is interesting, for example, that while he gives a detailed analysis of the merits of republicanism, he does not explain what he means by the term neo-liberalism – just that it is somehow the opposite of republican ideals.
By implication, he conjures a image of neo-liberalism that is based on nothing but greed and exploitation, one where people are not the agents of their own lives at a democratic, personal and national level.
Neo-liberalism, however, is a figment of the imagination. It is just another name for liberalism, which ironically is the political philosophy that gave birth to republicanism.
Freedom of speech, freedom of association, the separation of powers, and secularism, are all liberal ideals. And they exist in democratic countries across the world, irrespective of whether they are republican states or not.
The fundamental problem with Mr Pettit’s analysis is that he likes some forms of freedom but doesn’t like others.
NGOs, unions and community organisations fulfil a essential watchdog role in any polity. But so do corporations, government and business.
No organisation should be free of scrutiny.
We all watch each other. It’s called liberal democracy. – Yours, etc,
DECLAN MANSFIELD,
Gosnells,
Western Australia.