At the end of March, Leo Varadkar made what at the time appeared to be a curious comment.
“Freedom is not an abstract concept,” he said. “We give it meaning every single day – in the way we live our lives – and in the decisions we take willingly to protect our loved ones.
“So I am asking people to give meaning to our freedom and liberty by agreeing to these restrictions. Restricting how we live our lives so that others may live.”
Varadkar – and leaders across the world – are asking us to consider what liberty actually means
Languishing in the depths of political theory is not a luxury often afforded to politicians. Usually, they are busy putting out fires; keeping errant members of their government in line; mulling over policy detail; all while positioning themselves for whatever election looms.
Perhaps an unexpected byproduct of Covid-19, however, is seeing old debates rear their heads. It seems as the world is engulfed in crisis we are forced to confront once again the basic principles on which society rests: What grants our government legitimacy? What are the limits of state power? How far can we interfere with the lives of citizens? Varadkar – and leaders across the world – are asking us to consider what liberty actually means.
The world in 2020 might seem as though it shares little in common with the heady precrash days of the mid-noughties. We might feel as though we are living through unprecedented times – as a virus ravages communities, puts overwhelming pressure on health services, and governments crack down on our personal freedoms with remarkable ease.
But it is hard now not to draw some parallels. Throughout his tenure as prime minister, Tony Blair came under fire for the introduction of anti-social behaviour orders, the expansion of police powers and a controversial bid to introduce nationwide identity cards. In late 2005, he took to the pages of the Observer to defend his government’s record on questions of civil liberties.
“This is not a debate between those who value liberty and those who do not,” he wrote, “it is an argument about the types of liberties that need to be protected… And it is an attempt to protect the most fundamental liberty of all – freedom from harm by others.”
Commentators were unconvinced. The Independent ran an op-ed titled: “The limits of liberty: We’re all suspects now”, admonishing Blair for what seemed like egregious violations of individual freedoms at the hands of New Labour. They were not alone in their outrage, either.
Fast forward to 2020 and we are confronted with videos of police driving through parks, reprimanding sunbathers; sharing drone footage of dog walkers in the Peak District; or issuing summons to “multiple people from the same household going to the shops for non-essential items”. Meanwhile Varadkar, like Blair did in 2005, is mulling over the true nature of freedom.
We should consider what Blair was asking of his readers in 2005, and Varadkar of his listeners just a few weeks ago
But in Ireland, as gardaí have been granted greater powers over Easter weekend to enforce restrictions on public movement, we are perhaps not wrong to feel anxious about an overweening police presence.
It seems our basic civil liberties – once taken for granted – have been suffocated to within an inch of their life. Some by overzealous police, and others by direct order from the government. It is perhaps no surprise that #policestate was trending on Twitter across the UK this week.
But rather than indulging the powerful inclination to strip the entire concept of freedom of its nuance, reducing it to a blunt instrument – one used to condemn government efforts to slow the spread of the virus as simply authoritarian – we should instead consider what Blair was asking of his readers in 2005, and Varadkar of his listeners just a few weeks ago.
Liberty, Blair mused, is more complicated than simply being allowed to do whatever we want. That the police now have clamped down on our individual freedoms needn’t be pointed out – we cannot socialise, many cannot see their families, and we cannot travel. But freedom also concerns the wellbeing of everyone: we are not free if we do not feel safe in our neighbourhood (so Blair would argue); and we are not free if we do not uphold the mutual dignity of everyone in our community.
Below the electioneering, policymaking, political jousting, sniping, sneering and firefighting, our states are guided by these foundational principles
Meanwhile by “restricting how we live our lives so that others may live” we are reminded of these same arguments: the freedom we are granted by a functioning health service, the freedom we are granted by being healthy, and the dignity we offer each other by taking measures to protect the most vulnerable.
After Blair won a landslide election in 1997, he wrote to Isaiah Berlin – perhaps the greatest modern philosopher on liberty. He asked him about the practical implications of his theories; and how they should inform the direction of the British left. Blair never received a reply. But he was asking questions politicians have long wrestled with.
Invoking the spirit of Isaiah Berlin may seem lofty – especially when faced with a deluge of on-the-ground crises spurred by a pandemic. But it is a helpful reminder that below the electioneering, policymaking, political jousting, sniping, sneering and firefighting, our states are guided by these foundational principles. Ones that Varadkar asked us to treat with careful consideration.