Freedom swap or freedom trade-off was a term used in the past, which is to trade your personal freedom or public freedom in the interest of growth, through the use of oppression and dictatorships.
Countries at the time were convinced (or used it as an argument), that the use of repression was a fundamental key to the development process. Therefore, many countries resorted to suppressing individual and public freedoms to make development a success and build a strong economy.
Many repressive countries play a role in increasing industrial growth, such as South Korea and China recently, but on the other hand, the failure of many other dictatorships to achieve growth has not been denied. For example, the economic development process in South Korea was a fierce battle.
It was a battleground for all citizens who devoted all their energies and efforts to get out of the most extreme degrees of human deprivation and to leave the fear of hunger to nothing return.
Repression, helplessness, and the lack of continuous guarantees – past and present – dye the future with pessimism, hence its horizons are blocked, and man loses confidence in the possibility of salvation, which increases the pain and problems of the present, and sends despair from salvation, through self-effort, which is what characterizes the oppressed person's view of the future.
The anxiety and difficulties of the present take on a tense character, and everything raises the fear of disaster; as the present suffering, which does not find the possibility of salvation in the future of a perspective that turns life into hell, and raises abnormally high emotional tensions, which leads to extreme reactions, and has an emotional nature devoid of rationality and an objective appreciation of reality.
The use of repression is nothing but an incentive for people to take revenge, and thus it leads to a freeze on growth methods. Even though some repressive regimes have managed to achieve great growth, they suffer from a loss of local and international confidence. Indeed, the world needs a dictatorship, not a repressive dictatorship, but a development dictatorship.
This “development dictatorship” is based on three basic pillars to achieve economic development: a well-designed national development plan, a government of specialists capable of implementing this plan, and a clear and strict government program that allows the government to “acquire” (or manage and secure) capital. It is necessary to implement this plan.
This "development dictatorship", for example, is in all cases easier and cheaper than the development "dictatorship" of Mahathir Muhammad, which had no ingredients and resources other than the palm oil tree, poverty, ignorance, and ethnic division that was destroying Malaysia.
And Lee Kuan Yew's development of a "dictatorship", which found in its possession only the swamps, mosquitoes, and corruption that was ravaging Singapore.
The "dictatorship" of Park Chung-Hee, did not find in all South Korea either oil or other resources, but rather neither pastures nor arable lands, nor possessing anything but an extended history of "ideological" wars, and the fear of permanent hunger.
In addition, market advocates believe that the public interest is the basis and that it is okay for markets to deprive individuals of equality, under the pretext of seeking justice and social interest. They seek to distribute growth among groups, without regard for individual needs.
Indeed, this argument negatively affects the democratic process and human rights. So, what does it mean to achieve the public interest at the expense of the misery of individuals, and who said that using such methods may achieve development?
The use of such methods is nothing but a contribution to the overthrow of the economy of the countries that follow them, so that the countries defending freedom and democracy resort to severing their relationship with these countries, or they may deliberately put economic sanctions on such systems.
I strongly believe in the freedom of choice for everyone in society, while at the same time fully believing that the individual must accept the consequences and costs of his personal choices.
Just as the dream of every individual in society to exercise his right to choose what suits him in terms of education and health services, work, and consumption of goods and services that suit him, he must also bear the consequences and costs of these individual choices.
The freedom of the market is part of those options that are demanded by many members of society and that allow the individual to consume what he desires of goods and services, not what is imposed on him by practicing monopoly and oppression, whether governmental or private, of goods and services.
Edited by Palak Chauhan
Share This Post On
Leave a comment
You need to login to leave a comment. Log-in