© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
On July 4, 1776, the United States of America declared itself independent of British colonial rule. The signing of the Declaration of Independence was a result of what was felt to be years of unfair rule, with the imposition of high taxes and new Acts benefitting the colonisers’ home country.
The idea of fighting for freedom has long been discussed with reference to America since then. As is the case with the rest of the world, the fight for independence also brings forth a set of leaders projected as national heroes. One such leader at the time, Benjamin Franklin, was known for his role as a diplomat, inventor and writer, and was a founding father of the independent United States.
Here, we take a look at a quote from his writings: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Quotes on ideas and political concepts form a part of the UPSC CSE syllabus.
What is the full quote by Franklin?
The quote appears in a letter Franklin was writing in 1775. Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told NPR in 2015 that Franklin was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar.
At the time, the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for the defence of the frontier, during the French and Indian War. However, the family was unwilling to have any such law passed in the assembly. “Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally,” said Wittes, as the family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly’s acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.
Usage of the quote today
Since then, it can be said that the quote has taken a life of its own, particularly in the discourse around whether privacy and freedom are mutually exclusive ideas – meaning whether one can only exist in the absence of others.
Edward Snowden, a former computer engineer who worked for the American intelligence-gathering agency National Security Agency (NSA), once used a version of Benjamin’s quote to stress the importance of never parting with privacy. This was when in 2013, he blew the whistle off a government programme for the unconsented, mass surveillance of citizens for security and anti-terrorism purposes.
Therefore, over time, the quote has become a slogan for advocating for liberty, even though its context was not about this particular ideological battle. In fact, Franklin was focusing more on the rights of the government to exercise its authority when it came to securing national security – closer to advocating for government control than individual freedom.
What is the larger question of liberty vs security?
Whether it is the issue of mask mandates in the US or the privacy concerns raised by the all-seeing capabilities of both big technological corporations and the government, debates about the extent of liberty and security available to the population have become frequent of late.
But unlike what this quote seems to suggest, many argue that the concepts can co-exist because both security and freedom are important ideas for living a fulfilling life.
This year, the Supreme Court gave its judgment in the case regarding the functioning of the Malayalam channel MediaOne. It was alleged that it had links with the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, following which its licence to broadcast was revoked.
As this organisation was not a banned organisation and the Court did not find it to have substantial links with the channel, it held, “While we have held that it would be impracticable and unwise for the courts to define the phrase national security, we also hold that national security claims cannot be made out of thin air. There must be material backing such inference.” It added, “The state is using national security as a tool to deny citizens remedies that are provided under the law. This is not compatible with the rule of law.”
Therefore, where there is a security concern, there must also be a remedy against an overreach because security concerns cannot be prioritised in all cases over freedom or liberty. There is also the fact that both liberty and safety are not simple concepts to define and mean different things to different people. For some, security would mean being in an environment where everyone is wearing masks against a contagious disease. For others, it could also mean a tool that gives them the freedom to travel without the threat of disease. So in some case, security and freedom can become compatible.
This is why such cases often end up in courts, because of the overlap these ideas have with one another despite the apparent dissimilarity.
