Liberal democracy is a product of the reconciliation of conflicting groups. And for the reconciliation to happen, Freedom of Expression becomes paramount. Put simply, Freedom of Expression is that vehicle that keeps democracy in motion and sets the public discourse as a medium.
Freedom of Expression as a civil right is also implicit in Human Rights and is well recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 19 of UDHR reads as--
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Different countries across the world, in particular, liberal democracies have incorporated Freedom of Expression in their respective constitutions.
In India, it is a Fundamental Right under article 19-1(a) which reads as--
Article 19- All citizens shall have the right-(a)to freedom of speech and expression;
If Freedom of Expression is stifled, then the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 and the High Courts of respective jurisdictions under Article 226 can be petitioned for constitutional remedies.
Put simply, Freedom of expression in India has a legal sanction and most important right because it features in the section of Fundamental rights.
However, this right is not absolute as it was amended in 1951 to prevent its potential abuse.
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, made several changes to the Fundamental Rights Part of the Indian constitution where it amended Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution to counteract the "abuse of freedom of speech and expression."
So Freedom of Expression under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to Article 19(2) that imposes reasonable restrictions such as:-
- Security
- Sovereignty and integrity of the country
- Friendly relations with foreign countries
- Public order
- Decency or morality
- Hate speech
- Defamation
- Contempt of court
The imposition of restriction under Article 19(2) calls for the responsible use of this right.
It must also be noted that Fundamental Rights under article 19(1)(a) is available to Indian citizens only, not to foreigners.
Absolute FoE vis-a-vis Qualified FoE
When freedom of Expression comes under the ambit of Fundamental Rights enshrined in the constitution, it calls for a negative role of the state. This implies state should not interfere with the personal sphere including the freedom of speech of an individual, because FoE is fundamental to the growth, development, and overall well-being of an individual.
From a different angle, we must also recognize that the freedom of an individual must be qualified by another's equal freedom, otherwise, an absolute freedom may become tyrannical for another, and can also be a sentence of slavery for another.
That is why Duty is always implicit in Rights. Rights are not free entitlements, they come with a weight of responsibility, and only a sense of responsibility and duty-bound individuals can produce a just order in the society.
In today's context where digital media have become mainstream. Infodemic with fake and manipulated information is rampant, one faction is calling for censored content while the other faction is calling for absolute FoE.
Before Democracy can be institutionalized, the enabling condition is that a good society is already in operation as stated by Lipset, so if fake and manipulated information is flooding the social media, it is the duty and responsibility of the good society to counter it with correct information without censoring the content, so that ultimately the right information prevails over the fake ones.
In Politics, criticism is the cornerstone of a Democracy, and any Govt should value criticism more than the eulogy of its supporters.
In my opinion, the criticism should be merit-based and even credit should be given to the Govt wherever it is due. For that to happen the wider populace should be duly informed with the right knowledge/information.
So it's such a circular template where you constantly need interaction because your separate individual judgment does not have much weight if does not interact with your fellow members of your society.
According to American Philosopher John Dewey--
A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience.
Liberal Democracy is contemplated as a process of group conflict. Group conflict is nothing but interaction when people impress upon their "free expressions" on one another and seek to resolve it rationally.
Put simply, by invoking freedom of expression, the conflicts are spilled open and out, which are then appraised, discussed, and judged. The resultant product of this is Democracy.
That is why Freedom of Expression is fundamental to Democracy. Let's take a pledge to use this fundamental right to develop our scientific temper which in turn will make a rational judgment on our democratic setup.
This is my participation for the Initiative: May Monthly Prompt
Check out the above post if you are keen to participate in a particular topic of the day.
Thank you.
Infographic belongs to me