Holmes on Precommitment and the Paradox of Democracy (1) - The Point Cloud of Freedom

Image credit.

Constitutional Liberty versus Self-Government?

Stephen Holmes addresses the tensions, real and apparent, between freedom and democracy. As I have written here, freedom tends to devour herself, launching forces with the power to transform her substantially. Therefore, this process should be subject to certain checks. One of these is the institution of constitutional government. Its purpose is to insulate the basic structure of freedom from erosion by myopic and short-term fads or uneducated decisions supported by the majoritarian electorate and other forces seeking dysfunctional political change. But is not the constitutional bulwark anti-democratic? As Stephen Holmes puts it:

Is limited government, therefore, the antonym of self-government? ... [A]re restrictions on state power  the means by which grasping elites dilute the control wielded by ordinary citizens over their collective existence? 

Holmes, S. (1995), Passions and Constraint, p.134)

Freedom - A Cloud of Nodes Consisting of Clouds of Nodes

Having not yet read the chapter, I find it tempting to hurry ahead with my own thoughts. My basic intuition is to do with what I call robust conditions of freedom. 

Picture a cloud of nodes each of which representing a robust condition of freedom (such as the right to freely associate, the right to unhampered expression, contractual freedom, political freedom etc.)

As we will explain later, this cloud of nodes consists of many more clouds of nodes.

Every node is variable in size, weight and its position vis-à-vis other nodes.

For instance, one of the nodes may represent political freedom (ψ), another contractual freedom (λ).

Now, ψ may gain in size and weight compared to λ. Their relationship with one another as well as with the other nodes is dynamic. It changes, and a change in their relationship may cause changes in their relationship with other robust conditions of freedom, which may be affected in their relationship with still other nodes.

Minimum wages may be interpreted as a strengthening of ψ against λ. Contractual freedom is reduced to leave more room for a determination resulting from the exercise of political freedom. Incidentally, what is not immediately obvious is that in the context of other issues, λ may acquire greater size, weight and more prominent a position compared to ψ. In many situations, people are inhibited in exercising political freedom in order that other freedoms remain protected - the minimum wage is only an exception to this. Consider, for instance, that you are typically not entitled to pursue political activities on the premises of your employer, let alone use his assets to further your causes. This is a weakening of ψ over λ.

The point here is that the robust conditions of freedom are involved in a constant process of renegotiating their positions, size, and weight relative to one another. For more, see my Negotiable Freedom.

I envision a cloud of nodes of clouds of nodes because each issue affecting the robust conditions of freedom (such as a minimum wage or the right to engage in politics on the premises and with the means of your employer) may be usefully conceived of as a cloud system in its own right, i.e. rippling through the entire system of relative positions. Minimum wages and the attendant change in the relative position of political freedom and contractual freedom may impact other robust conditions of freedom like ... So, this cloud represents the constellation of rights for a given issue. But there are countless other issues representing many more clouds of nodes. Overall, freedom is a cloud of nodes (of clouds of nodes) that yields a discernible yet changeable shape, perhaps a bit like a huge flock of birds swerving in the sky.

You cannot judge the state and quality of freedom simply by looking at two nodes in a cloud (ψ and λ) or even just one of the many clouds of nodes ("Hey! The minimum wage is a blatant violation of contractual freedom!"). Freedom is defined by the shape of the entire system of clouds of nodes of clouds of nodes. This makes her complex, but also flexible, adaptable, and capable of her ultimate task: coordinating massive dissension and peaceableness in a society of great personal autonomy and high productivity.

So, the tension between constitutionalism and democracy must be placed in the context of a vast point cloud which accords us a substantial arsenal of issues available to be negotiated and to be traded off against one another. This makes the system at the same time supple and inert, swerving and contiguous. The relationship of one good (say, self-government) with another (say, limited government) is connected to and often mediated through a complex background constellation that lends both variability and cohesion to the overall system of freedom. In this way, we are enabled to achieve both (a) adaptation to new demands and needs and (b) a tradition of cohesive trust based on the ongoing experience of mutually acceptable compromise. The point cloud is a soft seat mounted on a buffer absorbing and dispersing constant shocks of confrontation and change. It gives us much more latitude and a vast range of choice among the goods we wish to trade off against one another. 

It is owing to the point cloud of freedoms that we are able to temper the tensions between freedom as constitutionalism and freedom as democracy.

Incidentally, there are two traditions in the theory of freedom - the tradition of relational freedom and the theory of monadic freedom. The point cloud narrative of freedom belongs in the former.

Perhaps to be continued in Holmes on Precommitment and the Paradox of Democracy (2)