Several months ago, a friend who had recently returned from a sojourn in Iran reminisced that we should not be too hasty to give up what we have now for a fundamentalist regime that would deny us our freedoms. A moot point certainly, but I have just come away from Tehran, Iran and understand the context of those sentiments.

However, what really struck me then, is what exactly are we giving up? To me the issue is not so much government X or Y that we have now or would in the future vote into office but rather, what are the assurances of any government of our fundamental freedoms?

Our freedoms shall be our vanguard against ill choices. If our civil liberties are secured, come hell or high water, we would survive the tempest.

Freedom of speech, expression and press freedom constitute the compass of self-governance for speech awakens human reflection for truth. Without speech, assembly and association fall by the wayside. It is not surprising then, that speech, expression and press freedom are coveted and oftentimes endangered.

It does beg the question as to how such a universal freedom is observed more in its restraint than its exercise. It is treated with suspicion by many Asian governments, or worse, its exercise by civil society construed as treason and sedition.

Much of the unhappiness can in fact be traced to our colonial past, Cold War politics of the superpowers, economic underdevelopment and marginalisation of which globalisation is the new euphemism.

Hegemonic forces

In the recently concluded Asian preparatory meeting of the World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance held in Tehran, both civil society and state participants noted the hegemony of former colonial governments which are expanded into trade organisations, multi-nationals and transnational corporations.

Civil society however reiterates the complicity of governments and ruling elite in the neo-colonisation process as the ills of globalisation putting profit before people in so many of our countries would not have been achieved without connivance of those entrusted with power.

In many countries, ruling elites have been responsible in putting the social, political and legal institutions of the state like the judiciary at risk by promoting interest of capital and investors first at the expense of the civil, political, economic and social rights of their people.

Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance are linked as much to the global hegemonic forces as to the hegemonic forces from within.

From the background of colonial exploitation and repression, superpower rivalry and globalisation, our politicians in power often claim that state suppression of rights including speech and expression should be tolerated in the interest of achieving higher priorities of national goals: unity, political stability and economic development.

As the raison d'etre of suppressing civil liberties, these arguments must surely fail as the suppression of freedoms since independence of former colonial states have not yielded better results for national unity, political stability or economic development.

We should question any move to give up speech in pursuit of some alleged national goal or goals which we are not even allowed to discuss. In fact speech is usually targeted for control since its exercise is the only way fallacies of its violation or violations of other rights can be exposed.

Abuse and manipulation

Not too long ago, those in power were spinning the idea that human rights are part of the 'western hegemony' that has no place in Asia. The case is surmised as us against them in the West; human rights are opposed to our Asian values and culture. Violations of human rights are rationalised in the name of Asian values, in the name of our culture and religion.

The acknowledgment of hegemonies linked to our colonial past and globalising forces today, should not be used as defences against civil society or be the justification for the progressive curtailment of freedoms. Surely, the sane argument must be that the protection and the exercise of freedoms would better prepare us for resisting all hegemonies and whatever cultural and religious fundamentalism within and without.

The fact that historically human rights formulations emerged from Western nations after the world wars does not by itself prove that they are not universal. More importantly, human rights emerged through a long struggle against the risks of abuse and manipulation of the centralised, pervasive and intrusive powers of the state.

To speak of human rights is essentially to speak about the claims of the citizen against the state. Whether as a result of colonial imposition or post-colonial adoption and endorsement, we now live under the model of the nation-state. Until we have another model with its safeguards, it would be terribly unwise not to adopt the mechanisms for limiting state powers.

Conversations among free persons will ensure that national unity would be based on solid foundations of justice and equality of ethnic, cultural or religious groups. Speech and expression would ensure that political stability is achieved through the widest possible participation of the population.

If speech is suppressed in the interest of preserving national unity, political stability or economic development, this may well mean that ruling elites will have to suppress all opposition to any policy they wish to implement in these areas. The government then can only rely on a very narrow base of information and support. In time we have no way of verifying whatever information in the formulation of policies and we might not be in a position to accurately evaluate the consequences of these policies.

Elections fallacy

Our national goals cannot succeed by silencing dissent and repressing opposition. Public articulation on these cannot be de-legitimised as acts of treason, non-patriotism or sedition. The economic crisis of 1997 have at least shown to us that bad planning, poor implementation of economic policies, corruption and incompetence were sustained in part through systematic denial of freedom of speech, expression and a co-opted press.

Free press has been long identified as a powerful counter-force to corruption in public life and a public watch-dog on the conduct of public officials. In fact Transparency International has identified free press alongside an independent judiciary as twin powers to safeguard [#1] national integrity systems[/#] .

Speech is integral to civil society. Civil society has been referred to as voluntary constituted social relations, organisations, institutions that stand outside of state structures. All regimes have rulers and a public realm, but only to the extent that they are democratic do they have an active civil society.

Thus democracy is not measured only by the holding of regular elections, fairly conducted and honestly counted. The view that the mere fact of elections is a sufficient condition for democracy has even been discounted as the fallacy of 'electorism'. This is the faith that merely by holding elections, political election will channel into peaceful contests among elites and accord public legitimacy to the winners, no matter how they are conducted.

Democracy is not about replacement of one group of ruling elites by another to the exclusion of the public at large. The essence of democracy is the diffusion and sharing of power among the whole population. Thus during the intervals between elections, we can seek to influence policy through a variety of interest associations and social movements. Speech and expression remains a vital concern to civil society and not exclusive to professional politicians or those elected to office.