Freedom is never absolute. Even in America where personal freedom is held in the highest esteem, there are still definable limits. Freedom of speech does not include, in the words of a noted jurist, the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, unless of course there is a fire.

Freedom is not the power of doing what we like, observed Lord Acton, but the right of being able to do what we ought. And we ought to work and create, he continued, for in so doing we serve humankind. An eloquent hadith (saying of our prophet) has it that we serve god best by serving fellow humans. And we serve fellow citizens best by remaining answerable and accountable to them.

There will always be limits o­n freedom; the pertinent question is where and how those lines are drawn and the role they play in the ordinary lives of the citizens. An analogy will clarify my point.

Moat in the zoo

Visiting San Diego Zoo, I was impressed to see how free the African antelopes were o­n their own manmade island surrounded by a narrow moat. They could easily jump off and escape. The attendant explained that the moat is a natural barrier (limit) and that the animals feel free behind it, blissfully munching right to the edges, unperturbed and oblivious of the boundary. Had they been confined behind high wire fences, they would be pacing along the edges to escape.

Limits o­n freedom can be viewed likewise. In America they are more like the moat unobtrusive and citizens are hardly aware of them. I may own my house but I cannot renovate it without a permit from the authorities. I may be a surgeon, but unless I carry malpractice insurance I cannot practise my profession. Thus my professional freedom is dependent o­n an insurance underwriter.

America's strict liability laws have forced many powerful individuals and companies into bankruptcy. These restrictions are real and affect everyone but somehow they do not appear as ominous or threatening as would the rigid rules in a totalitarian state. They are like the moat in the zoo.

America's Bill of Rights guarantees civil liberties like the freedoms of speech, religion, and peaceful assembly, together with the rights of due process. These statutes notwithstanding, they did not protect Japanese-Americans from being forcefully relocated and incarcerated during World War II, and more recently, the jailing of thousands of Arab-Americans following the 9-11 terrorists attacks. Today the injustices perpetrated o­n the Japanese-Americans are widely acknowledged but significantly, the Supreme Court decision affirming the legality of that order has yet to be overturned.

Barbed wire fences

Unlike America, Malaysia does not have a moat, instead ugly and menacing barbed wire fences. They announce their limits crudely and in no uncertain terms. Challenge them at your own risk! As such they are much more intimidating and affect individual behaviours more profoundly. Malaysia has many such highly intrusive rules, but the mother of all such laws is her infamous Internal Security Act (ISA).

Malaysians react to such brute restrictions in two ways. Some fearlessly challenge those barriers and suffer dearly. Read the wrenching accounts of Kassim Ahmad ( Universiti Kedua ) and Dr Syed Husin Ali ( Two Faces: Detention Without Trial ), intellectuals unjustly detained under the ISA. Malaysiakini's own Hishamuddin Rais and his loved o­nes are still paying that horrendous price, with him having been incarcerated now for over two years.

Others are more cautious and stray far behind, willingly and severely limiting their activities. Timid judges render their judgments ever mindful of their political consequences; and insecure editors practise self-censorship and shamelessly ingratiate themselves to the powerful. Unfortunately society suffers from such restraints; progress depends o­n creative citizens pushing the limits.

As long as humans wield power, there will be abuses. "No person is perfect enough to be entrusted with the liberty and dignity of others," wrote the Islamic reformer Mahmoud Mohamad Taha.

"No power is absolute, infinite, unbridled, arbitrary, and lawless," wrote Johannes Althusius in his Politica in 1603. As if taking a page from the Quran, he further contended that all power ultimately derives from god. Good Muslims are ever mindful of this.

Dysfunctional democracies

Some of today's ulama however, arrogantly proclaim that they, and o­nly they, have the right to interpret god's laws, forgetting for a moment that our great religion is wisely spared the elaborate theocracy that blights other faiths. There is no infallible papacy in Islam. These ulama issue endless fatwa (edicts) with far-reaching consequences without ever first consulting the ummah (community). The argument that they are answerable o­nly to god is at best disingenuous, for we all are. But until that Day of Judgment, these wannabe Muslim popes must remain answerable to the people. This is the pristine essence of Islam, and also of participatory democracy.

We must not confuse liberty with democracy. In his recent book, The Future of Freedom , Fareed Zakaria argues that elections and other accouterments of democracy do not equate with freedom. Saddam Hussein was elected by 99.9 percent of his people, and if he o­nly knew who those 0.1 percent were, the next election would see him secure a 100 percent approval (though this has become academic now)! The South Korean dictator General Park who seized power in the 1970s did more for the liberty of his people through effective economic development than the freely elected Corazon Aquino ever did for the Filipinos.

Indeed such dysfunctional democracies, characteristic of the Third World, do more to destroy human rights and dignity. The men of god currently ruling Iran all democratically elected testify to this.

Checks and balances

The o­nly advantage of a democracy is that when we elect an idiot, at least we may have a chance of getting rid of him (or her) at the next election, assuming of course that it would be fair and honest. The drawback is that we have o­nly ourselves to blame for our collective foolishness!

An effective safeguard against Lord Acton's aphorism that power tends to corrupt and that absolute power corrupts absolutely is to have adequate checks and balances. This is an acknowledgment of the universality of human frailty.

Functioning democracies have effective and clear separation of powers, with delicate checks and balances. Properly done and we have a transparent, responsive and effective government. Poorly executed and we have chronic conflicts and stalemates, the bane of democracies like India and the Philippines.

Independent and impartial judiciaries together with a free and responsible press serve important functions. They help draw the line the metaphorical moat. Unless we nurture these important institutions, we make a mockery of the liberty and freedom promised by a modern democracy.